|
Next week I'm making a longish motorcycle run to Dawson in the Yukon, and am considering taking the Bronica but not sure if I really want to. Mostly I'm thinking I'd like to use it here- http://www.arcticwebsite.com/RiverboatGraveyardP2.html but there are other areas of great interest along the way. MF would be nice but OTOH I will be on a bike. Not all of the road there is paved, which is a consideration, having a camera bouncing around isn't the best treatment. For digital, I'm taking the A200 and carrying a cheap 70-300 zoom which can be shared with the Minolta Maxxum 70 I'm carrying for the film side. That was great planning on my part, eh?
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2009 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Gnomad posted:Next week I'm making a longish motorcycle run to Dawson in the Yukon, and am considering taking the Bronica but not sure if I really want to. As long as you get a good bag with good padding you should be fine. It's a professional camera and it should be built to take a much worse beating than vibration from a motorcycle. Maybe you might consider ditching the A200? It'll really lighten your load if you go film-only. I just did that on my most recent vacation and didn't miss digital at all. It's a good idea to take two 35mm film bodies, one with fast film and one with slow as well as a compact point and shoot for when you don't have your kit on you. When you leave digital at home, you also leave the spare batteries, chargers, memory cards and all that too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
If you aren't keeping it on your back, wrap it up in your extra clothes in one of the saddlebags. I dunno about something as complicated as a Bronnie, but my Seagull was fine after a month and a half of banging around Laos and Vietnam on the side of my dirtbike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2009 00:07
|
|
|
HPL posted:I know about all this because basically I'm trying to find something with the exact same criteria as you. breathstealer posted:There is no pocketable rangefinder apart from the Olympus XA Thanks guys, I knew greater minds had tackled this before me. Knowing the limitations now, I still want to play with a rangefinder. Is the 35RC a good starter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2009 14:08
|
|
|
reuters posted:NEW YORK (Reuters) - Kodachrome, the film brand touted as the stuff of memories, is about to become a memory itself as Eastman Kodak stops production due to overwhelming competition from digital cameras. http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2009 21:04
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews big surprise there. only one place in the entire country develops that stuff. i have an undeveloped roll sitting in my film drawer right now because it'd be such a shlep to send it out there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2009 21:43
|
|
|
And I'm just finishing my first roll of Kodachrome. I hope I can get some more before it's over.
pwn fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jun 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:big surprise there. only one place in the entire country develops that stuff. i have an undeveloped roll sitting in my film drawer right now because it'd be such a shlep to send it out there. Same, although mine's a half roll (camera jammed in the middle of the roll, been meaning to shoot the other half and send it and some E-6 120 off to Dwaynes)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
long live velvia 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 10:24
|
|
|
Does anyone know where to buy Kodachrome at this point? B&H and Adorama seem to be out of stock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 15:20
|
|
|
I.G. posted:Does anyone know where to buy Kodachrome at this point? B&H and Adorama seem to be out of stock. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 15:25
|
|
|
I know my local lab still has a few rolls. If you have a nearby lab maybe they have a few rolls left?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 17:46
|
|
|
Try calling Dwayne's Photo directly and asking if they have any in stock. https://www.dwaynesphoto.com Freestyle photo might have some in stock still. http://www.freestylephoto.biz/index.php Panaflex fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jun 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 17:50
|
|
|
pwn posted:And I'm just finishing my first roll of Kodachrome. I hope I can get some more before it's over. I was just about to post this. Tourist pictures of China, you'll be my only Kodachrome memory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 18:04
|
|
|
I just scanned in photos from when I did my first photography class back in junior high and came across this-  I'm not sure if melting the negative really added to the shot or not, but it was done purely as an experiment. Anyone else ever try this? (It was Ilford Delta 400, nothing fancy, though I recall that was all I ever shot back then)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2009 06:43
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Thanks guys, I knew greater minds had tackled this before me. Knowing the limitations now, I still want to play with a rangefinder. Is the 35RC a good starter? You may want to consider an AF point and shoot. There are times when you'll only be able to take photos at a concert with one hand like when you're holding a beer or people are so jam packed together at the front that you can only get one arm in the air. I've got a couple of rolls from a concert last night that I shot with my Olympus Stylus Epic. I'll process them tonight and see if I can get some samples up here. The Stylus was ideal because it's very light and compact, somewhat water resistant (for flying drinks, sweat, etc.) and the sliding cover kept things protected when not in use. Also, you shouldn't have any problems getting it past security since it's so small and it looks like any other of the hundreds of point-and-shoots that people bring in these days. The only things that I didn't like about it are the fact that I have to turn the flash off every time I turn the camera on and the viewfinder is teeny tiny. Other than that I think it has the potential to be the concert photographer's secret weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2009 18:55
|
|
|
I just tried using vuescan, and it shows no option for film input. The instructions and FAQs and stuff talk about selecting color and b/w negative and slide film inputs, but I only get color photo, black and white photo, line art, text, magazine, and newspaper as options. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
So... not too shabby I'd say for a $10 camera:  Rest of set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31391300@N04/sets/72157620507052576/ HPL fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2009 02:42
|
|
|
Does anyone have experience with the Pentax auto 110 or any 110 camera? I may have just bought one because it was so cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2009 04:47
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:Does anyone have experience with the Pentax auto 110 or any 110 camera? I may have just bought one because it was so cheap. I saw one once at a camera show and I was all like: "Awwww... it's so cute!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2009 05:05
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:Does anyone have experience with the Pentax auto 110 or any 110 camera? I may have just bought one because it was so cheap. The last producer of 110 film just called it quits, but you may still be able to get some. Development is scarce. They are cute, however!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2009 06:23
|
|
|
yesterday I went to see a Yashica Electro 35 GSN listed on craigslist. I bought batteries (1 CR123 and 2 SR44s) for it at Radioshack beforehand. The lady was asking $15, it looked pretty clean and had the tele/wide finder and adapter lenses. With batteries, it didn't meter, and the check battery light didn't come on. I also couldn't get the 'bulb' function to work. The shutter would activate though, probably at the default 1/500. There wasn't any corrosion in the battery compartment, and the seals around the door are flaking off. I've read the servicing instructions on Yashica Guy's website, but I'm not sure if I'm up to takling it. Interestingly enough, she also had an Olympus Stylus (35mm f/3.5) for sale, asking $20. Has anyone here tried fixing an Electro? I told her if noone else comes for it, I'd give her $10 for the electro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2009 20:38
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Has anyone here tried fixing an Electro? I told her if noone else comes for it, I'd give her $10 for the electro. Even at $15, who cares? I've seen parts Electros go for more than that. The wires leading to the battery compartment may have come off, which would be a relatively simple fix. For the shutter, try running it for a while to get everything loose. For the light seals, run a test roll of film through it. It's possible that it may work fine the way it is. Lots of film cameras work fine even without seals or with bad seals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2009 20:51
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Has anyone here tried fixing an Electro? I told her if noone else comes for it, I'd give her $10 for the electro. Yeah, I bought one myself recently, $15 was a good price! It was easy to fix, everything screws apart, they're built like tanks. I replaced the light seals on mine. If you do do that, use the thinnest cotton you can, or else you will impede the little button that detects when the back is closed and stops the frame counter from flicking back to zero whenever you wind the film on. Do all you can to get the meter working, I've had superb results from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2009 22:13
|
|
|
I am just shooting the first roll through my GSN to test it out. I'm so incredibly about the discontinuation of Kodachrome because I had planned to load my GSN with Kodachrome for some urbexing, and perhaps some Tri-X in my P3n or K1000. Perhaps I will have to stick the Tri-X in the GSN instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I am just shooting the first roll through my GSN to test it out. I'm so incredibly Honestly, as storied as Tri-X is, I find that HP5 is like Tri-X but better. Far more flexible for exposure and it ends up looking better when you push it to the edge whereas Tri-X comes out looking chunky by comparison. On the other hand, that kind of effect may work well for urbex photos. One thing about the GSN is that it maxes out at ISO1000 and you may end up having to crank it to 1600 or 3200 which means finding an SLR like a Pentax Super Program or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2009 02:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:Honestly, as storied as Tri-X is, I find that HP5 is like Tri-X but better. Far more flexible for exposure and it ends up looking better when you push it to the edge whereas Tri-X comes out looking chunky by comparison. On the other hand, that kind of effect may work well for urbex photos. One thing about the GSN is that it maxes out at ISO1000 and you may end up having to crank it to 1600 or 3200 which means finding an SLR like a Pentax Super Program or something. I have a ME Super (1/2000 max) but it's in need of a CLA and I just never get around to it. Also I have no idea how to work it, I've never read the manual because I inherited the camera broken. v  v I think it's an aperture-priority but I don't have a lens on it to even play with the metering.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I have a ME Super (1/2000 max) but it's in need of a CLA and I just never get around to it. Also I have no idea how to work it, I've never read the manual because I inherited the camera broken. v The ME Super is a good camera and one of my favourites. It can do aperture priority like the GSN and it can do metered manual, which the GSN and a lot of compact rangefinders can't. The shutter is also one of the softer-sounding ones among the old Pentax SLRs. The 1/2000 shutter also puts it above several of its contemporaries but you won't be hitting those kinds of speeds in low light. There are a ton of cheap ME Supers out there on places like eBay or KEH. Pair it up with a 50mm f/1.7 and you've got a cheap low-light performer in roughly the same size as a GSN.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
Ugh, gently caress Russian QC. In the last 2 months: Arsat 30mm Fisheye - aperture blades a little sticky, still functional (re-sold) Kiev 60 TTL - rear shutter curtain jammed (returned) Jupiter-11 (from US seller) - elements both internal and external had dozens of tiny scratches (returned) Jupiter-11 (from Ukraine) - fungus, only partially engages rangefinding mechanism (going to be returned. Also, the 85mm viewfinder attachment is pretty lame, it tapers to a little pinhole you squint through) Jupiter-8 - the cheapest/most common, seems to be working Just a piece of advice to anyone else that's considering Russian gear: it's good when you get a working example, but always buy from somewhere with a return policy and preferably that knows how the hell to inspect photo gear :-\
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Thanks guys, I knew greater minds had tackled this before me. Knowing the limitations now, I still want to play with a rangefinder. Is the 35RC a good starter? Although I don't quite remember the exact specs, it should be. Just look online at reviews (cameraquest.com is great), and make sure it has the features you want - lens speed, AE or full manual, and so forth. They should all take great pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 15:24
|
|
|
The problem with the 35RC is that now that people have caught on to it, it's a lot more expensive than it was last year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 15:43
|
|
|
My CanoScan 8800F just came today  What DPI is typical to scan at? I admit I never understood how that worked. 300 DPI is standard I thought, I don't know why this goes to 9600.edit: Hey Google exists. Nevermind http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-processing-printing-software-darkroom/34153-how-many-dpi-should-i-scan-film.html Reichstag posted:Well, remember you're scanning a tiny negative, at 300 pixels per inch you're not gonna have you much of a file on a 35mm neg! pwn fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jun 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 21:07
|
|
|
Well, remember you're scanning a tiny negative, at 300 pixels per inch you're not gonna have you much of a file on a 35mm neg! I scan most of my negs at 1200dpi for my initial scans/web stuff, but if you ever want to print, well, that's why it goes that high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 21:09
|
|
|
This grain-peeping demonstration is about quality of detail, not tone or colour or contrast. I've worked on scanning several photos that I had already had professionally scanned, to compare. I scanned B&W and colour reversal frames. However for this demonstration I'm just using the slide scan, to make it clear that the difference isn't in PP, unsharp mask, etc. This is the slide as professionally scanned at NCPS, and a bit of curves and colour correction due to magenta colour shift of the expired film in Photoshop.  100% crop of this scan, 3339 x 5035 pixels:  And 100% crop from the CanoScan scan, 4304 x 6512 pixels, importing in Photoshop:  Am I doing something wrong? The CanoScan scan is smaller than the NCPS one even, which makes zero sense to me. Edit: I can't remember the DPI setting used... 6400 I think? Also the scans of frames compared to scans from the local lab so far show similar results. I don't expect a little flatbed to compare to the equipment at NCPS but this is far from acceptable, and it is more than likely user error. pwn fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jun 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 22:50
|
|
|
Are you using your scanner's maximum res?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 22:54
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Are you using your scanner's maximum res?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 22:58
|
|
|
Have you tried turning on the unsharpen mask? I have no idea what it does, but on an Epson I use it makes a huge difference. Without it, things are washed out (much like the scans that come from the local shop here), and with it, things look perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 23:17
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Have you tried turning on the unsharpen mask? I have no idea what it does, but on an Epson I use it makes a huge difference. Without it, things are washed out (much like the scans that come from the local shop here), and with it, things look perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
One thing I do with the Epson V500 is when after do a preview, I reset the settings to no adjustments except unsharp mask so the colours and contrast look a little washed out, but after scanning, doing an auto level adjustment usually kicks everything into properness and then I fine tune it. I figure it's probably better if I do it manually than let the scanning software have a go at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
pwn posted:No, I selected a DPI setting to closely match the existing scans I had. I'll keep working on this over the next few days. I don't want to return it, but if this is the best it can do, the money can be better spent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 00:47
|
|