Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
My Zeiss folder has a f/3.5 Xenar lens. It looks like it could use a cleaning, but isn't too horrible. It also is 6x4.5, with a 75mm lens. Very nice bit of engineering, Compur-rapid shutter. The specific model is Super Ikonta A 531. I might have put two rolls of film through it. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
On 2021-08-18 16:24, Curt Raymond via Mercedes wrote: Interesting article on attempting to develop Kodachrome: https://emulsive.org/articles/darkroom/developing-film/they-took-my-kodachrome-away-so-i-brought-it-back Lotsa people "reinventing" old film stuff. Like the Impossible project bringing back Polaroid. They even bought the name: https://us.polaroid.com/ I have a couple of fairly high end Polaroids that used to belong to my uncle. My Swinger, well, in the 1980s when I was away at college, one of the ladies my dad worked with wanted to borrow it, so he loaned it to her. She said she couldn't find film to fit it so she threw it away for me. State employees, what do you expect? Dad worked with them for 30 years, befriended them, and with very few exceptions got crapped on by them. One of the best of that lot, now 79 years old, spent the Saturday before Father's Day painting his church. That evening, some piece of crap who wanted to know what it'd be like to murder somebody came knocking on his door. What his son found after Carl didn't show for Father's Day I wouldn't wish on anybody. And did I mention that back in the 1970s I really liked Carl? https://www.wlns.com/news/michigan/23-year-old-charged-with-murder-mutilation-of-a-body-in-eaton-township/ ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
I forgot the extreme ends of my collection - I have an almost complete spy setup of Minox B camera and accessories - just missing the packets of chemistry. I rigged up a couple of exacto blades to slit 35mm film to load in Minox cartridges, techpan and tri-x. I only played with the cameras though, no spy work. On the other end, I had a 20"x20" process camera on horizontal rails that I bought for the 19" lens. I mounted the lens on an 8x10 for portraits. One of the points I like about the Nikon system is that I can use all of my old Nikon glass on the current digital bodies. For my next photo adventure, I'm re-building the Woody's Pusher with a plexiglass dome nose with a mount for the D750 - I'll be able to "point and shoot" with the airplane, just like a gun camera in a fighter. My current favorite lens for aerial video is the Irix 11mm on the full frame D750 - almost fisheye coverage, but rectilinear drawing. On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:29 PM Allan Streib via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > When I was into B&W photography in high school I always preferred Ilford > film and paper. Seemed to have a higher contrast, deeper blacks, which I > liked, I thought Kodak always came out looking washed out and grey. > > Last time I shot any film was about a year ago, shot a roll of Fujicolor > 35mm and was aghast at what it cost to get the film processed and scanned > to digital. That pretty much put an end to any thoughts I had about getting > back into film photography. > > Allan > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 4:14 PM, dan penoff.com via Mercedes wrote: > > I typically shot Kodak Plus-X (ASA 125, IIRC) in black and white, > Vericolor for color negatives (rarely used) and both Ektachrome and > Kodachrome for color slides. For color I almost always shot slide film, as > it’s far more stable than color negative film and the dyes in it can be > complimentary to the type of subject you’re shooting, as in Ektachrome for > blues and Kodachrome for red. Besides that from an archival standpoint > color slide film, especially Kodachrome, is significantly more stable than > any other films. That and the print reversal process made it easy to get > prints out of color slides. > > > > I have 35mm Kodachrome slides my Dad shot in the 1950s that still look > like new. It was a sad day when they stopped selling Kodachrome, as well as > when the last lab, a place in Kansas, I believe, stopped processing it. > > > > -D > > > > > On Aug 18, 2021, at 2:23 PM, Curt Raymond via Mercedes < > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm going to use the Indie Film lab: https://youtu.be/TCxoZlFqzwA > > > About $16/roll for the B&W stuff I bought. Until I went to buy film I > didn't realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never > used color in one. > > > -Curt > > > > > >On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:17:30 PM EDT, Jim Cathey < > jim.cathey...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 > rolls with shipping was less than $32. > > > > > > That's about 50 cents per shot, in 6x6 format, less in 6x4.5. Not too > bad. > > > Of course, developing and printing is extra. > > > > > > -- Jim > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > > > > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > > > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > -- OK Don "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain “Basic research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I am doing.” Wernher Von Braun 2013 F150, 18 mpg 2017 Subaru Legacy, 30 mpg 1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph! ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
When I was into B&W photography in high school I always preferred Ilford film and paper. Seemed to have a higher contrast, deeper blacks, which I liked, I thought Kodak always came out looking washed out and grey. Last time I shot any film was about a year ago, shot a roll of Fujicolor 35mm and was aghast at what it cost to get the film processed and scanned to digital. That pretty much put an end to any thoughts I had about getting back into film photography. Allan On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 4:14 PM, dan penoff.com via Mercedes wrote: > I typically shot Kodak Plus-X (ASA 125, IIRC) in black and white, Vericolor > for color negatives (rarely used) and both Ektachrome and Kodachrome for > color slides. For color I almost always shot slide film, as it’s far more > stable than color negative film and the dyes in it can be complimentary to > the type of subject you’re shooting, as in Ektachrome for blues and > Kodachrome for red. Besides that from an archival standpoint color slide > film, especially Kodachrome, is significantly more stable than any other > films. That and the print reversal process made it easy to get prints out of > color slides. > > I have 35mm Kodachrome slides my Dad shot in the 1950s that still look like > new. It was a sad day when they stopped selling Kodachrome, as well as when > the last lab, a place in Kansas, I believe, stopped processing it. > > -D > > > On Aug 18, 2021, at 2:23 PM, Curt Raymond via Mercedes > > wrote: > > > > I'm going to use the Indie Film lab: https://youtu.be/TCxoZlFqzwA > > About $16/roll for the B&W stuff I bought. Until I went to buy film I > > didn't realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never > > used color in one. > > -Curt > > > >On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:17:30 PM EDT, Jim Cathey > > wrote: > > > >> Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 rolls > >> with shipping was less than $32. > > > > That's about 50 cents per shot, in 6x6 format, less in 6x4.5. Not too bad. > > Of course, developing and printing is extra. > > > > -- Jim > > > > > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
The Noctilux was designed to be used wide open in high contrast light, especially street photography. I think Canon had a similar lens with a max aperature of 0.95, also low contrast. Stays soft even at f5.6 too. Minimal image curvature wide open too with little distortion. That's why you get so much detail in night photography. Not terribly useful for bright light, for that you want a Tessar -- four elements instead of 8 or 9, so much less degradation from the image going through so many lens surfaces. Killer images. Just like high horsepower engines, lenses rapidly become single use devices when you want the most image quality in a specific situation. I don't personally think there was a huge difference between Leitz lenses and the best from Japan in the 80s, certainly in microscopes I'd rather poke my eyes out than use a Leitz with 1950's lenses rather than an Olympus with wide aperatures and flat field, I got sea-sick looking at blood smears on the Leitz. Serious field curvature, the image swooped into and out of focus as you moved the slide. Counting white cells was awful. By the late 70's everyone was using computers to do the hard work, and everyone made very good to excellent lenses, and it's very hard to tell them apart -- the main differences seem to be in color rendering. The biggest issue with Leitz was that they were hand built. Beautiful cameras, and they were very nice to handle, but you paid someone to take a rough set of parts and individually fit them together to make that lovely device. Precision assembly, with half a million adjustments, lenses included. Parts are only partially interchangeable, and on the rangefinders EVERYTHING was adjustable in the focus and rangefinder, including azimuth. Bonk one and it had to go to the shop and have someone fix all the adjustments! Nikon F or old Nikormat you could use as a weapon between shots without damage, ditto for Pentax cameras -- my brother left his on top of the car and drove off once, saw it bouncing down the road after it fell off in it's case. Still worked fine, meter was even accurate! The Japanese discovered precision manufacture after WWII, and while they aren't as beautifully built, all the parts interchange rather than being "adjusted to fit" together. Very good cameras at less than half the price of Leica and pretty much indistinguishable image quality, although like audio, some people maintain they see differences the vast majority of other's don't! ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
I've shot 120 film in Mamiya 33, 220, and 330 cameras, Graflex XL, and Hasselblad. I still have the Hasselblad, but sold off all the good lenses, just have the 80mm now. The Hasselblad blew the rest of them away, but I could only afford the older lenses, backs, etc. I did a lot of trading equipment back then to get what I ultimately wanted. Shot lots of portraits and scenics with the Blad. Started with a 2"x3" sheet film Crown Graphic, moved up to 4x5, then 8x10 (still have three 8x10 cameras), then down to 35mm - started with a Minolta SRT101, which does not stand up to much use. Nikons also blow away everything except Canon for serious use. We used first Canons then Nikons at work - both have strengths and weaknesses, mostly in the accessories and specialized lenses. I was able to trade labor for a set of Leica M3s and lenses early on, slowly built up that system over the years. Sold most of it to KEH a couple of years ago for dimes on the dollar, but they are about the only film 35mm cameras that are worth anything now. The fit/finish, smoothness of action, accuracy of focus and shutter speeds is unmatched, and every bit as good as the legend says. The lenses are in a class by themselves, the 50mm Summicron (f2) designed in the mid '50s was still beating the new lenses in the '80s from the Japanese, both in max resolution and evenness resolution across the field. The "Leica look" that some refer to is due to their emphasis on evenness of resolution across the entire negative. You could see detail in prints taken with the 50mm f1 Noctilux that you did not see when shooting in low light - it was built using technology that Leitz developed for spy satellites. I still have the 400mm Telyt long focus lens (not a telephoto - the physical length from the elements to the film plan is 400mm) with an adapter for Nikon F mount - I still use it with the "full sized" chip Nikon D750. I also still have a couple of darkrooms worth of equipment, enlargers from Minox to 4x5 Omega, with the Leitz Focomat IIc being the star - autofocus enlarger for 6x9 film down. Nothing beats a contact print from an 8x10 negative for smooth detail --- YMMV. On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:25 PM Curt Raymond via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > Interesting article on attempting to develop Kodachrome: > https://emulsive.org/articles/darkroom/developing-film/they-took-my-kodachrome-away-so-i-brought-it-back > Lotsa people "reinventing" old film stuff. Like the Impossible project > bringing back Polaroid. They even bought the name: > https://us.polaroid.com/ > > -Curt > > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 04:14:53 PM EDT, dan penoff.com via > Mercedes wrote: > > I typically shot Kodak Plus-X (ASA 125, IIRC) in black and white, > Vericolor for color negatives (rarely used) and both Ektachrome and > Kodachrome for color slides. For color I almost always shot slide film, as > it’s far more stable than color negative film and the dyes in it can be > complimentary to the type of subject you’re shooting, as in Ektachrome for > blues and Kodachrome for red. Besides that from an archival standpoint > color slide film, especially Kodachrome, is significantly more stable than > any other films. That and the print reversal process made it easy to get > prints out of color slides. > > I have 35mm Kodachrome slides my Dad shot in the 1950s that still look > like new. It was a sad day when they stopped selling Kodachrome, as well as > when the last lab, a place in Kansas, I believe, stopped processing it. > > -D > > > On Aug 18, 2021, at 2:23 PM, Curt Raymond via Mercedes < > mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > > > I'm going to use the Indie Film lab: https://youtu.be/TCxoZlFqzwA > > About $16/roll for the B&W stuff I bought. Until I went to buy film I > didn't realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never > used color in one. > > -Curt > > > >On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:17:30 PM EDT, Jim Cathey < > jim.cathey...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 rolls > with shipping was less than $32. > > > > That's about 50 cents per shot, in 6x6 format, less in 6x4.5. Not too > bad. > > Of course, developing and printing is extra. > > > > -- Jim > > > > > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mai
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
I have an ancient Zeiss folder (pre-war) that takes 645 size images, and it was mediocre when I got it. While I was living in Canada, I got to poking around and discovered that the open surfaces of the Cooke Triplet lens had gotten fogged from the lubricant in the focusing helicoid. Fortunately it was quite easy to dis-assemble the lens and clean those surfaces -- just fogged, no damage and no coatings. Once back together it takes very good photographs so long as there is no issue with glare -- since it's uncoated or single coated, anything with point sources of light causes quite a bit of flare. Max aperature is 6.3, so it's a bright light camera for all in intents and purposes, and I've not used any color film in it yet to see how it does with color images (probably some fringing in the corners I'd guess). Very handy as it's quite small. I also have a 6x9 Russian Moskva that I've not used much, I think it needs a shutter service. Wish I'd had it when I was doing some of my photography back in the 80s -- that large format and high resolution film like AgfaPan 25 makes for spectacular images. Digital is quick and easy, but getting that sort of resolution and enlargement ability just isn't there unless you drop 30k or more on a back. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
Interesting article on attempting to develop Kodachrome: https://emulsive.org/articles/darkroom/developing-film/they-took-my-kodachrome-away-so-i-brought-it-back Lotsa people "reinventing" old film stuff. Like the Impossible project bringing back Polaroid. They even bought the name: https://us.polaroid.com/ -Curt On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 04:14:53 PM EDT, dan penoff.com via Mercedes wrote: I typically shot Kodak Plus-X (ASA 125, IIRC) in black and white, Vericolor for color negatives (rarely used) and both Ektachrome and Kodachrome for color slides. For color I almost always shot slide film, as it’s far more stable than color negative film and the dyes in it can be complimentary to the type of subject you’re shooting, as in Ektachrome for blues and Kodachrome for red. Besides that from an archival standpoint color slide film, especially Kodachrome, is significantly more stable than any other films. That and the print reversal process made it easy to get prints out of color slides. I have 35mm Kodachrome slides my Dad shot in the 1950s that still look like new. It was a sad day when they stopped selling Kodachrome, as well as when the last lab, a place in Kansas, I believe, stopped processing it. -D > On Aug 18, 2021, at 2:23 PM, Curt Raymond via Mercedes > wrote: > > I'm going to use the Indie Film lab: https://youtu.be/TCxoZlFqzwA > About $16/roll for the B&W stuff I bought. Until I went to buy film I didn't > realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never used color > in one. > -Curt > > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:17:30 PM EDT, Jim Cathey > wrote: > >> Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 rolls with >> shipping was less than $32. > > That's about 50 cents per shot, in 6x6 format, less in 6x4.5. Not too bad. > Of course, developing and printing is extra. > > -- Jim > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
I typically shot Kodak Plus-X (ASA 125, IIRC) in black and white, Vericolor for color negatives (rarely used) and both Ektachrome and Kodachrome for color slides. For color I almost always shot slide film, as it’s far more stable than color negative film and the dyes in it can be complimentary to the type of subject you’re shooting, as in Ektachrome for blues and Kodachrome for red. Besides that from an archival standpoint color slide film, especially Kodachrome, is significantly more stable than any other films. That and the print reversal process made it easy to get prints out of color slides. I have 35mm Kodachrome slides my Dad shot in the 1950s that still look like new. It was a sad day when they stopped selling Kodachrome, as well as when the last lab, a place in Kansas, I believe, stopped processing it. -D > On Aug 18, 2021, at 2:23 PM, Curt Raymond via Mercedes > wrote: > > I'm going to use the Indie Film lab: https://youtu.be/TCxoZlFqzwA > About $16/roll for the B&W stuff I bought. Until I went to buy film I didn't > realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never used color > in one. > -Curt > >On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:17:30 PM EDT, Jim Cathey > wrote: > >> Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 rolls with >> shipping was less than $32. > > That's about 50 cents per shot, in 6x6 format, less in 6x4.5. Not too bad. > Of course, developing and printing is extra. > > -- Jim > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
I have 2 nice 35mm cameras, one Olympus and one Minolta, with some good tele lenses, got as wedding gifts in '82. Took them out of their storage bin a few months ago, everything still looked good and seemed to work. It felt like such a waste to have these nice pieces of technology be totally obsolete but I guess that is how it goes. Took a lot of pics with them, they were very versatile cameras. I have a couple of others too an old lady gave me, I forget what kind they are but they were very good cameras too in the 70s. --FT On 8/18/21 4:04 PM, Jim Cathey via Mercedes wrote: I wish I had kept my film cameras. I can't remember the last time I used one. Nice ones, too, a Canon RT and a 1N in addition to the Mamiya C330. Also all my dad's old Minolta gear that he offed on me... That stuff's easy enough to come by, now. Few people want it. Darkroom stuff, etc. with no takers. At the moment, if I ever had need for a very large resolution what I'd reach for would be the Mamiya. Much cheaper than any other way to get there. One roll of film, with processing and scanning farmed out. Couldn't be that much money! Unless, of course, stitching 35mm digital together would do the job. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com -- --FT ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
> I wish I had kept my film cameras. I can't remember the last time I used one. Nice ones, too, a Canon RT and a 1N in addition to the Mamiya C330. Also all my dad's old Minolta gear that he offed on me... That stuff's easy enough to come by, now. Few people want it. Darkroom stuff, etc. with no takers. At the moment, if I ever had need for a very large resolution what I'd reach for would be the Mamiya. Much cheaper than any other way to get there. One roll of film, with processing and scanning farmed out. Couldn't be that much money! Unless, of course, stitching 35mm digital together would do the job. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
That will be great for the Q. I wish I had kept my film cameras. On Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 9:55 PM Curt Raymond via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > I watched a Duck Camp Dinners https://youtu.be/Aos2X5dNg9I episode the > other night where they talked about the pictures of duck camp back in the > day and it got me thinking about film. So tonight I ordered up 5 rolls of > 120 film. Dad has a bunch of old cameras that use the stuff, I thought it > might be fun to do some old school photography. > So, new thing at ChowdaQ, real film... > -Curt > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
One nice thing about 120 is that you can examine contact sheets by eye, without needing magnification. And as snaps, they're good enough as-is. I think, back in the day, that all automated prints were contacts. Enlargement was only done for special custom printing. With 35mm they needed more equipment in their print factory, since everything was enlarged. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
I hadn't thought of it before, I think I've done 4 (maybe 5, I'm not sure.) wedding videos over the last 22 years and AFAIK all the couples are still together... -Curt On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:57:21 PM EDT, Jim Cathey wrote: I didn't realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never used color in one. Works well. I shot whatever Kodak's color wedding film was,I forget the name. Designed with less punchy contrast in orderto handle well couples dressed in both all-white and all-black,as is common at weddings. Also have used Tech Pan, and IR film, andVelvia. As I mentioned, I never got the chance to shoot Kodachrome. Mostly just experimenting, except for the family wedding shoots. Forthose I also had my Canon 35mm. The wedding photos were mygift, and I did it my way, which was informals only. I told them if theywanted the traditional stuff they'd have to hire somebody else too.No way was I getting into wrangling bridesmaids and parents intoformal poses, and the disappointments if I failed for whatever reason.(Amateur photographer, untrained. Good gear, though. Only gear I boughtfor the weddings, besides film, was the Sunpak/Quantum flash.) I never hadany complaints. I think one of the marriages is still going... -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
> I didn't realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never > used color in one. Works well. I shot whatever Kodak's color wedding film was, I forget the name. Designed with less punchy contrast in order to handle well couples dressed in both all-white and all-black, as is common at weddings. Also have used Tech Pan, and IR film, and Velvia. As I mentioned, I never got the chance to shoot Kodachrome. Mostly just experimenting, except for the family wedding shoots. For those I also had my Canon 35mm. The wedding photos were my gift, and I did it my way, which was informals only. I told them if they wanted the traditional stuff they'd have to hire somebody else too. No way was I getting into wrangling bridesmaids and parents into formal poses, and the disappointments if I failed for whatever reason. (Amateur photographer, untrained. Good gear, though. Only gear I bought for the weddings, besides film, was the Sunpak/Quantum flash.) I never had any complaints. I think one of the marriages is still going... -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
I'm going to use the Indie Film lab: https://youtu.be/TCxoZlFqzwA About $16/roll for the B&W stuff I bought. Until I went to buy film I didn't realize that there was anything other than B&W in 120. I've never used color in one. -Curt On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:17:30 PM EDT, Jim Cathey wrote: > Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 rolls with > shipping was less than $32. That's about 50 cents per shot, in 6x6 format, less in 6x4.5. Not too bad. Of course, developing and printing is extra. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
> Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 rolls with > shipping was less than $32. That's about 50 cents per shot, in 6x6 format, less in 6x4.5. Not too bad. Of course, developing and printing is extra. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
620 film is still available as is 110. Those were the ones that surprised me. Not only is 120 still available it's not really that expensive, 5 rolls with shipping was less than $32. I bought 5 different ones to play with. I plan to shoot them in some vintage Kodak Brownie cameras for that old timey look and feel, just normal people out shooting with a 100+ year old camera... -Curt On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 12:40:25 PM EDT, dan penoff.com via Mercedes wrote: Long-time Mamiya guy. Mainly M645, dabbled in the RB67 but never wanted to invest in the platform as it was really expensive at the time. The M645 was like a 35mm SLR on steroids. It handled in a similar manner, yielded a large frame (6mm x 4.5mm) which was great for the landscape photography I liked to do, and the system was expansive and affordable. I had several Yashica 120 TLRs, all of which did a good job for a manual medium format camera. The real beauty of the M645 platform and the main reason why I preferred it was the availability of removable backs. I could load backs with B&W, color negative and Ektachrome or Kodachrome and be able to swap them out on the fly based on what I wanted to shoot and the image I wanted to attain. You can see a number of photos I shot with this setup on my website at http://penoff.com/Photos.html K&H Photo used to be a great place to snag medium format gear at a very good price, and their rating system is super conservative. I happened to look the place over a week or two ago when I was cleaning up my bookmarks and there seems to be little in the way of used medium format gear around. Not sure if they’re just not actively buying/selling much any more, or if there’s simply no demand and as a result no market. I’m surprised 120/220 film is readily available any more. -D > On Aug 18, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Jim Cathey via Mercedes > wrote: > >> So tonight I ordered up 5 rolls of 120 film > > Medium format excels at enlargements. I took a photo class with a friend > once, > I had a Mamiya C330 and he had a Minolta 35mm. We were photographing the > same subject matter. I wanted to blow up one corner of a frame, he said it'd > be grainy. It was not, he was amazed at how well it enlarged. (This was a > darkroom class we were taking.) > > Sort of a variant of the old automotive "No replacement for displacement." > > The Mamiya TLR's lenses are decent, but not spectacular. I have another old > folding Zeiss Ikon 120 camera that is really cool, but the lens on it is > truly mediocre. > You'd get better results from any average 35mm SLR camera. I have a plastic > Diana 120 fixed-focus camera that would be even worse than the folder. I've > never 'wasted' a roll of film in it, though. > > I shot a couple of family weddings with the Mamiya, B&W and with a Sunpak 622 > potato-masher combust-a-cat flash when necessary. Quantum turbo battery. A > real beast of a flash setup. Once I shot a roll of 120 color slide film, > just for fun. > BIG slides. This was all some time ago. Somewhere I scared up a roll of 120 > Kodachrome, but it can no longer be processed. I lost track of the roll of > film. > > The Mamiya TLR is outstanding for IR photography. All metal, with a separate > viewfinder lens so you can put a black #87 IR filter on the taking lens and > still frame > and focus normally. Just have to watch the standard TLR parallax issues, and > remember the standard IR focus compensation. > > I took old-timey portraits of my (now-deceased) parents with the Mamiya, I > printed > them on 16x20 paper and they got mounted in old oval glass frames my mom had > found somewhere. That session there were some straight poses, and some gag, > like the 'American Gothic' pose. Good times... > > -- Jim > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
Long-time Mamiya guy. Mainly M645, dabbled in the RB67 but never wanted to invest in the platform as it was really expensive at the time. The M645 was like a 35mm SLR on steroids. It handled in a similar manner, yielded a large frame (6mm x 4.5mm) which was great for the landscape photography I liked to do, and the system was expansive and affordable. I had several Yashica 120 TLRs, all of which did a good job for a manual medium format camera. The real beauty of the M645 platform and the main reason why I preferred it was the availability of removable backs. I could load backs with B&W, color negative and Ektachrome or Kodachrome and be able to swap them out on the fly based on what I wanted to shoot and the image I wanted to attain. You can see a number of photos I shot with this setup on my website at http://penoff.com/Photos.html K&H Photo used to be a great place to snag medium format gear at a very good price, and their rating system is super conservative. I happened to look the place over a week or two ago when I was cleaning up my bookmarks and there seems to be little in the way of used medium format gear around. Not sure if they’re just not actively buying/selling much any more, or if there’s simply no demand and as a result no market. I’m surprised 120/220 film is readily available any more. -D > On Aug 18, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Jim Cathey via Mercedes > wrote: > >> So tonight I ordered up 5 rolls of 120 film > > Medium format excels at enlargements. I took a photo class with a friend > once, > I had a Mamiya C330 and he had a Minolta 35mm. We were photographing the > same subject matter. I wanted to blow up one corner of a frame, he said it'd > be grainy. It was not, he was amazed at how well it enlarged. (This was a > darkroom class we were taking.) > > Sort of a variant of the old automotive "No replacement for displacement." > > The Mamiya TLR's lenses are decent, but not spectacular. I have another old > folding Zeiss Ikon 120 camera that is really cool, but the lens on it is > truly mediocre. > You'd get better results from any average 35mm SLR camera. I have a plastic > Diana 120 fixed-focus camera that would be even worse than the folder. I've > never 'wasted' a roll of film in it, though. > > I shot a couple of family weddings with the Mamiya, B&W and with a Sunpak 622 > potato-masher combust-a-cat flash when necessary. Quantum turbo battery. A > real beast of a flash setup. Once I shot a roll of 120 color slide film, > just for fun. > BIG slides. This was all some time ago. Somewhere I scared up a roll of 120 > Kodachrome, but it can no longer be processed. I lost track of the roll of > film. > > The Mamiya TLR is outstanding for IR photography. All metal, with a separate > viewfinder lens so you can put a black #87 IR filter on the taking lens and > still frame > and focus normally. Just have to watch the standard TLR parallax issues, and > remember the standard IR focus compensation. > > I took old-timey portraits of my (now-deceased) parents with the Mamiya, I > printed > them on 16x20 paper and they got mounted in old oval glass frames my mom had > found somewhere. That session there were some straight poses, and some gag, > like the 'American Gothic' pose. Good times... > > -- Jim > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT: Film
> So tonight I ordered up 5 rolls of 120 film Medium format excels at enlargements. I took a photo class with a friend once, I had a Mamiya C330 and he had a Minolta 35mm. We were photographing the same subject matter. I wanted to blow up one corner of a frame, he said it'd be grainy. It was not, he was amazed at how well it enlarged. (This was a darkroom class we were taking.) Sort of a variant of the old automotive "No replacement for displacement." The Mamiya TLR's lenses are decent, but not spectacular. I have another old folding Zeiss Ikon 120 camera that is really cool, but the lens on it is truly mediocre. You'd get better results from any average 35mm SLR camera. I have a plastic Diana 120 fixed-focus camera that would be even worse than the folder. I've never 'wasted' a roll of film in it, though. I shot a couple of family weddings with the Mamiya, B&W and with a Sunpak 622 potato-masher combust-a-cat flash when necessary. Quantum turbo battery. A real beast of a flash setup. Once I shot a roll of 120 color slide film, just for fun. BIG slides. This was all some time ago. Somewhere I scared up a roll of 120 Kodachrome, but it can no longer be processed. I lost track of the roll of film. The Mamiya TLR is outstanding for IR photography. All metal, with a separate viewfinder lens so you can put a black #87 IR filter on the taking lens and still frame and focus normally. Just have to watch the standard TLR parallax issues, and remember the standard IR focus compensation. I took old-timey portraits of my (now-deceased) parents with the Mamiya, I printed them on 16x20 paper and they got mounted in old oval glass frames my mom had found somewhere. That session there were some straight poses, and some gag, like the 'American Gothic' pose. Good times... -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
[MBZ] OT: Film
I watched a Duck Camp Dinners https://youtu.be/Aos2X5dNg9I episode the other night where they talked about the pictures of duck camp back in the day and it got me thinking about film. So tonight I ordered up 5 rolls of 120 film. Dad has a bunch of old cameras that use the stuff, I thought it might be fun to do some old school photography. So, new thing at ChowdaQ, real film... -Curt ___ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
Those Nikon Fs have the most wonderful optics. I spent 3.5 years shooting color slides in Fiji and some of the photos of sunsets and portraits taken at 1/4 sec. shutter speeds on Agfachrome were absolutely like paintings. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM, OK Don wrote: > 1000 rolls through a Nikon F is like 50,000 on a 123 300D - just getting > broken in. My F3s got close to 1000 rolls per year for 10 years with two > CLAs during the time. > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM, glenn brown wrote: > > > > > I believe one of the traits for those of us with old M-B diesels is cheap > > genes, as I still have my Nikon F T which I purchased in '68 for $210 w/ > > the Nikkor F1.4 50mm lens along with a more recent Nikon FTN both of > which > > I don't use as much as I used to but still do shoot film occasionally. > > Note: the early F probably has had ~1K rolls through it and the only > > repair, at Bernie's in Pbgh., in all these years was to the meter head. > > > > G. M. Brown > > Brevard, NC > > > > > -- > OK Don > 2001 ML320 > 1992 300D 2.5T > 1990 300D 2.5T > 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
1000 rolls through a Nikon F is like 50,000 on a 123 300D - just getting broken in. My F3s got close to 1000 rolls per year for 10 years with two CLAs during the time. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM, glenn brown wrote: > > I believe one of the traits for those of us with old M-B diesels is cheap > genes, as I still have my Nikon F T which I purchased in '68 for $210 w/ > the Nikkor F1.4 50mm lens along with a more recent Nikon FTN both of which > I don't use as much as I used to but still do shoot film occasionally. > Note: the early F probably has had ~1K rolls through it and the only > repair, at Bernie's in Pbgh., in all these years was to the meter head. > > G. M. Brown > Brevard, NC -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I believe one of the traits for those of us with old M-B diesels is cheap genes, as I still have my Nikon F T which I purchased in '68 for $210 w/ the Nikkor F1.4 50mm lens along with a more recent Nikon FTN both of which I don't use as much as I used to but still do shoot film occasionally. Note: the early F probably has had ~1K rolls through it and the only repair, at Bernie's in Pbgh., in all these years was to the meter head. G. M. Brown Brevard, NC ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
No idea what they are worth. Give me a price and I will talk to Toni and see if she wants it. Thanks, Mike On Jan 11, 2012 11:28 AM, "andrew strasfogel" wrote: > I have a Nikon N 2000 SLR film SLR camera with the f1.4 50 mm, 28mm > f3.5, and 200mm f 4.0 lenses. The lenses were from my old Nikon > Photonic FTN body and converted so they sync with the 2000. > > Are these collector's items yet? Does anyone want to make me an > offer? All are in primo condition. > > Andrew > who also collects and dirves 300TD W123 wagons > > On 1/11/12, Dan Penoff wrote: > > My dad's XG-7 is still in good order, although I haven't used it in > years. > > It does require a battery, but I'm not sure if it is necessary for > operation > > or not. > > > > I have a bunch of lenses and other goodies for it, but as stated above, > they > > never get used. > > > > Like a lot of 35mm gear, it has no value whatsoever, either... > > > > Dan > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Jim Cathey wrote: > > > >>> Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical...Doubt I'll get the > >>> [electronic] Minoltas fixed - would probably cost more than new ones. > >> > >> Something like a Minolta SRT-101 is also entirely mechanical, > >> except for the light meter. I've got one (unless it's a -201). > >> I don't use it, my Dad was housecleaning and gave me his. > >> > >> And you're probably right. Assuming you even _could_ get > >> them fixed now. > >> > >>> Are the digital SLRs comparable with 35mm SLRs? > >> > >> Now they are, mostly. > >> > >>> I know it’s apples and oranges but what do you use for comparison? I > >>> assume digital uses megapixels as the primary quality yardstick - but > >>> doesn't a decent 35SLR have what is consider "unlimited" pixels with > good > >>> film, etc.? > >> > >> Sorta. But you ultimately get to lens resolution, and they didn't > >> usually bother making lenses any better than the best film that you > >> could buy at the time. I think that perhaps for specialized situations > >> that analog photography can beat digital, but that for almost all > >> other uses the digicams kick butt. Especially in light sensitivity > >> these days. > >> > >> Didn't I read somewhere that it takes about six photons in a certain > >> (temperature-dependent) timeframe to permanently affect a silver > >> molecule? Versus one (theoretically) for an electronic sensor? > >> > >> See also: > >> > >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm > >> > >> -- Jim > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> http://www.okiebenz.com > >> For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > >> > >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
Yes, comparing film grains to pixels is apples to oranges. Measuring captured line pairs is a more valid test, but includes the entire optical chain. 100lpi used to be the benchmark - very few lens/camera combos got there. I've gotten very good results with multiple image panoramas using a mediocre digicam, 9 8 megapixel files = 72 mps (not deducting the overlaps). I've become quite enamored with image stabilization technology. It works much better than my old breathing techniques, bracing elbows into sides, etc. Like Jim said, the Nikon F3 and F4, and the Canon "new" F series are great cameras that will last a LONG time with minimal maintenance. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Jim Cathey wrote: > I was just reading an article about Kodachrome, and in it they stated that >> a Kodachrome 35mm negative was equivalent to about 20 megapixels. >> > > It's a positive, not a negative. That figure might be a bit low. > One difference is that with film the three color-sensitive layers > are superimposed, whereas most digital sensors are side-by-side. > (Bayer sampling, etc.) Makes the numbers hard to compare. > > There is no doubt in my mind that the best bang-for-buck out > there is an older pro-level film camera system, combined with > good films and care used in taking the images. But it's going > to be a lot less convenient than a digicam. > > -- Jim > > -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300 <1992300>D 2.5T 1990 300 <1990300>D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
They are much more reasonable now than were just before digital became decent, but still not "cheap". The M6 has a built-in meter, and it works great. The meter is all the battery runs. I ought to sell mine, but I'm still emotionally attached to it. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Allan Streib wrote: > "Larry" writes: > > > My electronic 35 SLRs have all stopped working properly - but > > the Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical, works like the day > > it was new ;-) It's a great camera once you get used to the focus > > mechanism and the separate light meter. > > If I ever get back into film photography I would really like to get some > Leica gear. Is any of it getting reasonably priced now that the most > folks have moved on to digital? > > Allan > > -- > 1983 300 <1983300>D > 1979 300 <1979300>SD > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300 <1992300>D 2.5T 1990 300 <1990300>D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I've had the same experience with KEH. Their prices are higher than a lot of eBay sales these days, but you have a lot more confidence buying from them. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Dan Penoff wrote: > Check KEH to get an idea of prices. > > Do understand that their grading system is frighteningly conservative, as > I have bought stuff labeled BGN and UG (bargain and ugly) that was > amazingly nice. Even their EX stuff looks like new. > > I would not hesitate to buy something from them. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Allan Streib wrote: > > > "Larry" writes: > > > >> My electronic 35 SLRs have all stopped working properly - but > >> the Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical, works like the day > >> it was new ;-) It's a great camera once you get used to the focus > >> mechanism and the separate light meter. > > > > If I ever get back into film photography I would really like to get some > > Leica gear. Is any of it getting reasonably priced now that the most > > folks have moved on to digital? > > > > Allan > > > > -- > > 1983 300 <1983300>D > > 1979 300 <1979300>SD > > > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300 <1992300>D 2.5T 1990 300 <1990300>D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
No, they're not collectors items yet, but you can use those lenses with a new digi Nikon body - at least the D700 for sure. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:28 AM, andrew strasfogel wrote: > I have a Nikon N 2000 SLR film SLR camera with the f1.4 50 mm, 28mm > f3.5, and 200mm f 4.0 lenses. The lenses were from my old Nikon > Photonic FTN body and converted so they sync with the 2000. > > Are these collector's items yet? Does anyone want to make me an > offer? All are in primo condition. > > Andrew > who also collects and dirves 300TD W123 wagons > > -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300 <1992300>D 2.5T 1990 300 <1990300>D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I have a Nikon N 2000 SLR film SLR camera with the f1.4 50 mm, 28mm f3.5, and 200mm f 4.0 lenses. The lenses were from my old Nikon Photonic FTN body and converted so they sync with the 2000. Are these collector's items yet? Does anyone want to make me an offer? All are in primo condition. Andrew who also collects and dirves 300TD W123 wagons On 1/11/12, Dan Penoff wrote: > My dad's XG-7 is still in good order, although I haven't used it in years. > It does require a battery, but I'm not sure if it is necessary for operation > or not. > > I have a bunch of lenses and other goodies for it, but as stated above, they > never get used. > > Like a lot of 35mm gear, it has no value whatsoever, either... > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Jim Cathey wrote: > >>> Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical...Doubt I'll get the >>> [electronic] Minoltas fixed - would probably cost more than new ones. >> >> Something like a Minolta SRT-101 is also entirely mechanical, >> except for the light meter. I've got one (unless it's a -201). >> I don't use it, my Dad was housecleaning and gave me his. >> >> And you're probably right. Assuming you even _could_ get >> them fixed now. >> >>> Are the digital SLRs comparable with 35mm SLRs? >> >> Now they are, mostly. >> >>> I know it’s apples and oranges but what do you use for comparison? I >>> assume digital uses megapixels as the primary quality yardstick - but >>> doesn't a decent 35SLR have what is consider "unlimited" pixels with good >>> film, etc.? >> >> Sorta. But you ultimately get to lens resolution, and they didn't >> usually bother making lenses any better than the best film that you >> could buy at the time. I think that perhaps for specialized situations >> that analog photography can beat digital, but that for almost all >> other uses the digicams kick butt. Especially in light sensitivity >> these days. >> >> Didn't I read somewhere that it takes about six photons in a certain >> (temperature-dependent) timeframe to permanently affect a silver >> molecule? Versus one (theoretically) for an electronic sensor? >> >> See also: >> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm >> >> -- Jim >> >> >> >> ___ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
My dad's XG-7 is still in good order, although I haven't used it in years. It does require a battery, but I'm not sure if it is necessary for operation or not. I have a bunch of lenses and other goodies for it, but as stated above, they never get used. Like a lot of 35mm gear, it has no value whatsoever, either... Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Jim Cathey wrote: >> Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical...Doubt I'll get the >> [electronic] Minoltas fixed - would probably cost more than new ones. > > Something like a Minolta SRT-101 is also entirely mechanical, > except for the light meter. I've got one (unless it's a -201). > I don't use it, my Dad was housecleaning and gave me his. > > And you're probably right. Assuming you even _could_ get > them fixed now. > >> Are the digital SLRs comparable with 35mm SLRs? > > Now they are, mostly. > >> I know it’s apples and oranges but what do you use for comparison? I assume >> digital uses megapixels as the primary quality yardstick - but doesn't a >> decent 35SLR have what is consider "unlimited" pixels with good film, etc.? > > Sorta. But you ultimately get to lens resolution, and they didn't > usually bother making lenses any better than the best film that you > could buy at the time. I think that perhaps for specialized situations > that analog photography can beat digital, but that for almost all > other uses the digicams kick butt. Especially in light sensitivity > these days. > > Didn't I read somewhere that it takes about six photons in a certain > (temperature-dependent) timeframe to permanently affect a silver > molecule? Versus one (theoretically) for an electronic sensor? > > See also: > > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm > > -- Jim > > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
Check KEH to get an idea of prices. Do understand that their grading system is frighteningly conservative, as I have bought stuff labeled BGN and UG (bargain and ugly) that was amazingly nice. Even their EX stuff looks like new. I would not hesitate to buy something from them. Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Allan Streib wrote: > "Larry" writes: > >> My electronic 35 SLRs have all stopped working properly - but >> the Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical, works like the day >> it was new ;-) It's a great camera once you get used to the focus >> mechanism and the separate light meter. > > If I ever get back into film photography I would really like to get some > Leica gear. Is any of it getting reasonably priced now that the most > folks have moved on to digital? > > Allan > > -- > 1983 300D > 1979 300SD > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I was just reading an article about Kodachrome, and in it they stated that a Kodachrome 35mm negative was equivalent to about 20 megapixels. It's a positive, not a negative. That figure might be a bit low. One difference is that with film the three color-sensitive layers are superimposed, whereas most digital sensors are side-by-side. (Bayer sampling, etc.) Makes the numbers hard to compare. There is no doubt in my mind that the best bang-for-buck out there is an older pro-level film camera system, combined with good films and care used in taking the images. But it's going to be a lot less convenient than a digicam. -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
"Larry" writes: > My electronic 35 SLRs have all stopped working properly - but > the Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical, works like the day > it was new ;-) It's a great camera once you get used to the focus > mechanism and the separate light meter. If I ever get back into film photography I would really like to get some Leica gear. Is any of it getting reasonably priced now that the most folks have moved on to digital? Allan -- 1983 300D 1979 300SD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical...Doubt I'll get the [electronic] Minoltas fixed - would probably cost more than new ones. Something like a Minolta SRT-101 is also entirely mechanical, except for the light meter. I've got one (unless it's a -201). I don't use it, my Dad was housecleaning and gave me his. And you're probably right. Assuming you even _could_ get them fixed now. Are the digital SLRs comparable with 35mm SLRs? Now they are, mostly. I know it’s apples and oranges but what do you use for comparison? I assume digital uses megapixels as the primary quality yardstick - but doesn't a decent 35SLR have what is consider "unlimited" pixels with good film, etc.? Sorta. But you ultimately get to lens resolution, and they didn't usually bother making lenses any better than the best film that you could buy at the time. I think that perhaps for specialized situations that analog photography can beat digital, but that for almost all other uses the digicams kick butt. Especially in light sensitivity these days. Didn't I read somewhere that it takes about six photons in a certain (temperature-dependent) timeframe to permanently affect a silver molecule? Versus one (theoretically) for an electronic sensor? See also: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I was just reading an article about Kodachrome, and in it they stated that a Kodachrome 35mm negative was equivalent to about 20 megapixels. Where the author got that I don't know, but it sounds plausible. Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:09 AM, "Larry" wrote: > My electronic 35 SLRs have all stopped working properly - but the Leica > made around 1950 and entirely mechanical, works like the day it was new ;-) > It's a great camera once you get used to the focus mechanism and the > separate light meter. > > Doubt I'll get the Minolta's fixed - would probably cost more than new > ones. But I like working with negatives and doing darkroom work - but > digital makes it sooo easy... not necessarily better though. > > Are the digital SLRs comparable with 35mm SLRs? I know it’s apples and > oranges but what do you use for comparison? I assume digital uses megapixels > as the primary quality yardstick - but doesn't a decent 35SLR have what is > consider "unlimited" pixels with good film, etc. ? > > LarryT > 91 300D > > -Original Message- From: Alex Chamberlain > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:28 PM > To: Mercedes Discussion List > Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras > > On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, "Mountain Man" wrote: >> > >> Who takes pictures these days? >> > > *raises hand* > > It's nothing compared to the fancy setup some of these guys have, but I > have a lot of fun shooting 35mm film with a couple of old Canon cameras, an > AE-1 SLR and a Canonet QL17 rangefinder. Mostly I use 3200 ASA Kodak B/W > film. A local shop develops it to negatives for me which I scan into my > old PowerMac with a Konica film scanner. Then I have the shots I like > printed by the same place. > > Alex > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
My electronic 35 SLRs have all stopped working properly - but the Leica made around 1950 and entirely mechanical, works like the day it was new ;-) It's a great camera once you get used to the focus mechanism and the separate light meter. Doubt I'll get the Minolta's fixed - would probably cost more than new ones. But I like working with negatives and doing darkroom work - but digital makes it sooo easy... not necessarily better though. Are the digital SLRs comparable with 35mm SLRs? I know it’s apples and oranges but what do you use for comparison? I assume digital uses megapixels as the primary quality yardstick - but doesn't a decent 35SLR have what is consider "unlimited" pixels with good film, etc. ? LarryT 91 300D -Original Message- From: Alex Chamberlain Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:28 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, "Mountain Man" wrote: Who takes pictures these days? *raises hand* It's nothing compared to the fancy setup some of these guys have, but I have a lot of fun shooting 35mm film with a couple of old Canon cameras, an AE-1 SLR and a Canonet QL17 rangefinder. Mostly I use 3200 ASA Kodak B/W film. A local shop develops it to negatives for me which I scan into my old PowerMac with a Konica film scanner. Then I have the shots I like printed by the same place. Alex ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I pretty much stuck with Ilford for paper and chemistry, but I really got to know the lower ASA B&W films in the Kodak line early on, back in the days when I was push processing Tri-X (400 ASA) for my high school yearbook. I hated the graininess of the film, even shot at the rated speed, so I started playing around with Plus-X and Panatomic-X. Even better, I did some high speed Kodak infrared B&W stuff as well. I didn't have a big budget or a lot of filters at the time, so my work was limited, but it was still fun. At that point B&W was pretty cheap to shoot, so I could bulk load Tri-X and blow off as much as I wanted without breaking the bank. I definitely stuck with the lower speed B&W films in medium format. Plus-X in a 6x4.5 format could make enlargements that had absolutely no grain to them. It was a really warm film, too, which I also liked about it... Dan On Jan 10, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Allan Streib wrote: > I never really did like any of the Kodak B&W stuff, except the Technical > Pan for deliberately high-contrast work. > > I ususally used Ilford... film, paper, and chemistry. Occasionally > experimented with other stuff. Haven't done any of it in years. > > Allan > > Dan Penoff writes: > >> I forgot about the 3200 ASA stuff. I so rarely use fast film, I just never >> paid attention to it. >> >> My personal favorite: Plus-X, which I believe was 125 ASA, and Panatomic-X, >> which I know was only 32 ASA. >> >> For color, hands down either Kodachrome 25 or 64 ASA, or Ektachrome if I was >> looking for something more blue shifted. >> >> I started shooting Kodachrome rather late, and feel like I really missed >> out. That was some awesome film. >> >> Ansel Dan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> > > -- > 1983 300D > 1979 300SD > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I never really did like any of the Kodak B&W stuff, except the Technical Pan for deliberately high-contrast work. I ususally used Ilford... film, paper, and chemistry. Occasionally experimented with other stuff. Haven't done any of it in years. Allan Dan Penoff writes: > I forgot about the 3200 ASA stuff. I so rarely use fast film, I just never > paid attention to it. > > My personal favorite: Plus-X, which I believe was 125 ASA, and Panatomic-X, > which I know was only 32 ASA. > > For color, hands down either Kodachrome 25 or 64 ASA, or Ektachrome if I was > looking for something more blue shifted. > > I started shooting Kodachrome rather late, and feel like I really missed out. > That was some awesome film. > > Ansel Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > -- 1983 300D 1979 300SD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
I forgot about the 3200 ASA stuff. I so rarely use fast film, I just never paid attention to it. My personal favorite: Plus-X, which I believe was 125 ASA, and Panatomic-X, which I know was only 32 ASA. For color, hands down either Kodachrome 25 or 64 ASA, or Ektachrome if I was looking for something more blue shifted. I started shooting Kodachrome rather late, and feel like I really missed out. That was some awesome film. Ansel Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Alex Chamberlain wrote: > On Jan 10, 2012 11:45 AM, "Dan Penoff" wrote: >> >> 3200 ASA?!? >> >> What are you doing, pushing Tri-X to get that index? >> >> Yikes! >> > > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/tMaxP3200.jhtml > > Love this stuff for candid shots, street photography, etc. > > Alex > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
On Jan 10, 2012 11:45 AM, "Dan Penoff" wrote: > > 3200 ASA?!? > > What are you doing, pushing Tri-X to get that index? > > Yikes! > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/tMaxP3200.jhtml Love this stuff for candid shots, street photography, etc. Alex ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
3200 ASA?!? What are you doing, pushing Tri-X to get that index? Yikes! Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Alex Chamberlain wrote: > On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, "Mountain Man" wrote: >> > >> Who takes pictures these days? >> > > *raises hand* > > It's nothing compared to the fancy setup some of these guys have, but I > have a lot of fun shooting 35mm film with a couple of old Canon cameras, an > AE-1 SLR and a Canonet QL17 rangefinder. Mostly I use 3200 ASA Kodak B/W > film. A local shop develops it to negatives for me which I scan into my > old PowerMac with a Konica film scanner. Then I have the shots I like > printed by the same place. > > Alex > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, "Mountain Man" wrote: > > Who takes pictures these days? > *raises hand* It's nothing compared to the fancy setup some of these guys have, but I have a lot of fun shooting 35mm film with a couple of old Canon cameras, an AE-1 SLR and a Canonet QL17 rangefinder. Mostly I use 3200 ASA Kodak B/W film. A local shop develops it to negatives for me which I scan into my old PowerMac with a Konica film scanner. Then I have the shots I like printed by the same place. Alex ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
OK Don wrote: > Correct - the Nikon crop lenses auto set the full frame sensor to cropped > mode. Who takes pictures these days? ...what is the value of old film cameras? mao ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Jim Cathey wrote: > > > I preferred, when it was new, Canon's break with compatibility > in the name of better autofocusing and auto-irising. The dedicated > in-lens motors. Nikon finally had to cave and do the same thing > as Canon was eating their lunch. But there's a lot of compatibility > issues to deal with with older Nikon lenses. With Canon, any EF > lens will go on any Canon SLR. Period. (Crop-sensor lenses, > the EF-S lenses, will only go on their crop-sensor DSLR bodies.) > > So while you can use much of the great old Nikon glass, unlike > Canon, you are limited in your body choices if you want it to > work in all but manual modes. And those bodies aren't cheap. > So pay attention to what you're getting in to. > > At the time, the two best 300mm lenses made were both Canon, > the f/2.8 and the f/4 lenses. Nikon's f/2.8 was in third place. > (This is when compared optically.) That is an example of the > specialized glass I'm referring to. I don't know how they rank > today. The best fisheye lens is (was?) the Canon 15mm. Canon's > 50mm f/1.0 is a bit dreadful, OTOH Nikon doesn't have one at all > so again Canon wins this contest. Nikon has clear winners too, > just don't ask me what they are. In either line the full-frame > DSLR bodies are not the cheap ones, which means if you're using > the common crop-sensor bodies your full-frame lenses are not as > wide-angle as you're used to. (35mm acts like a 50mm, etc.) > A boon on the telephoto side, usually, but a real curse on the > wide-angle side. Both lines have cheaper crop-only lenses that > work with the common bodies, but will not work with full-frame > cameras like the film bodies. Personally I avoid these lenses. > > I really like the handling of Canon's AF lenses that have a full-time > manual override/tweak ring. The Nikon lenses I'm aware of do not > have this, you MUST disengage the AF if you want to tweak the focus. > Irrelevant for studio and landscape work, maybe huge for sports > and action. You decide. > > Check out Ken Rockwell's site for more detailed information. > > You can do the same with Canon equipment too. Any Canon FD mount lens >> will >> go on a Canon DSLR. >> > > No, they don't. Some will with an adapter ring, but won't be able to > focus to infinity, so it's really only of use for macro work. I'd > suggest you forget about Canon's FL and FD mount lenses. > > Canon's EF-S (crop) lenses will not go on the full-frame (and film) > bodies. EF lenses go on all bodies. I believe Nikon's crop lenses > will go on their full-frame DSLR bodies, but the camera goes into > a crop mode then. (This is arguably better than Canon's approach.) > > -- Jim Correct - the Nikon crop lenses auto set the full frame sensor to cropped mode. I've only held a few of the Nikon bodies, but all of those took the F lenses just fine - but in ful manual mode. I've not tried any of the auto-focus film lenses on a digi body to see what level of automation remains. If you want f1 - you need to go Leica. It's a great lens! But, I can't afford a current digi M body to go with it, so it's relegated to film for the time being. -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Fmiser wrote: > What about replacing the 300 W lamp with a 30 W? That is the > same as shooting ISO 200 as compared to ISO 20. If you really > are going from ISO 2 to ISO 200, then a 3 W halogen is enough! > (this is presuming the lumens/watt is the same for all these > lamps) > > Personally, I think a low-power halogen would be easier to get > working well. But that's really just a wild guess 'cause I > haven't tried. I have "shot" quite a few Ektachrome slides with > my digital camera. Not nearly as good as a proper film scanner, > but fairly good quality and _way_ faster than a scanner. > > -- Philip > Yes, the slide duping film (Kodak 5071) was about ISO 2. It was "lab" film, so varied quite a bit from batch to batch. We had to re-establish both eposure and color balance with each batch, so we bought 20 100ft. rolls at a time. The 300W bulb is a projection bulb with built-in dichroic reflector, so matching the light path to keep even illumination is going to be an issue, regardless of what I replace the bulb with. There is a mixing box under the slide holder (hollow styrofoam box) that will help even the light under the slides. The results I've gotten so far shooting slides with the Nikon are equal to if not better than the old Polaroid SprintScan I was using, and MUCH faster. Hope I can it even better -- -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
> OK Don wrote: > It's that little 300w halogen projection bulb in the little > metal box that I'm trying to get away from. It was nice when > the ISO of the duplicating film was 2, but a bit of overkill > now that I'm shooting at ISO 200. What about replacing the 300 W lamp with a 30 W? That is the same as shooting ISO 200 as compared to ISO 20. If you really are going from ISO 2 to ISO 200, then a 3 W halogen is enough! (this is presuming the lumens/watt is the same for all these lamps) Personally, I think a low-power halogen would be easier to get working well. But that's really just a wild guess 'cause I haven't tried. I have "shot" quite a few Ektachrome slides with my digital camera. Not nearly as good as a proper film scanner, but fairly good quality and _way_ faster than a scanner. -- Philip ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
What makes you prefer Canon over Nikon? She has not used a Canon so we have no comparison. Very good point about the specialty glass. I preferred, when it was new, Canon's break with compatibility in the name of better autofocusing and auto-irising. The dedicated in-lens motors. Nikon finally had to cave and do the same thing as Canon was eating their lunch. But there's a lot of compatibility issues to deal with with older Nikon lenses. With Canon, any EF lens will go on any Canon SLR. Period. (Crop-sensor lenses, the EF-S lenses, will only go on their crop-sensor DSLR bodies.) So while you can use much of the great old Nikon glass, unlike Canon, you are limited in your body choices if you want it to work in all but manual modes. And those bodies aren't cheap. So pay attention to what you're getting in to. At the time, the two best 300mm lenses made were both Canon, the f/2.8 and the f/4 lenses. Nikon's f/2.8 was in third place. (This is when compared optically.) That is an example of the specialized glass I'm referring to. I don't know how they rank today. The best fisheye lens is (was?) the Canon 15mm. Canon's 50mm f/1.0 is a bit dreadful, OTOH Nikon doesn't have one at all so again Canon wins this contest. Nikon has clear winners too, just don't ask me what they are. In either line the full-frame DSLR bodies are not the cheap ones, which means if you're using the common crop-sensor bodies your full-frame lenses are not as wide-angle as you're used to. (35mm acts like a 50mm, etc.) A boon on the telephoto side, usually, but a real curse on the wide-angle side. Both lines have cheaper crop-only lenses that work with the common bodies, but will not work with full-frame cameras like the film bodies. Personally I avoid these lenses. I really like the handling of Canon's AF lenses that have a full-time manual override/tweak ring. The Nikon lenses I'm aware of do not have this, you MUST disengage the AF if you want to tweak the focus. Irrelevant for studio and landscape work, maybe huge for sports and action. You decide. Check out Ken Rockwell's site for more detailed information. You can do the same with Canon equipment too. Any Canon FD mount lens will go on a Canon DSLR. No, they don't. Some will with an adapter ring, but won't be able to focus to infinity, so it's really only of use for macro work. I'd suggest you forget about Canon's FL and FD mount lenses. Canon's EF-S (crop) lenses will not go on the full-frame (and film) bodies. EF lenses go on all bodies. I believe Nikon's crop lenses will go on their full-frame DSLR bodies, but the camera goes into a crop mode then. (This is arguably better than Canon's approach.) -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
On Jan 6, 2012 7:46 PM, "OK Don" wrote: > > > The big advantage with Nikon is the ability to use the vast range of older > lenses, much of which is still very good and far less expensive than it > used to be. You do need a body with manaul controls to use the older glass. > You can do the same with Canon equipment too. Any Canon FD mount lens will go on a Canon DSLR. Alex ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Michael Canfield writes: > What makes you prefer Canon over Nikon? She has not used a Canon so we > have no comparison. Very good point about the specialty glass. If she's mainly shooting photos for web pages it won't matter. Allan -- 1983 300D 1979 300SD ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Don, I think her favorite feature of the Nikon is the "live view" mode you are speaking of. That may be the biggest deciding factor for her. She also likes a lot of the features of the newer Olympus dslr's and from what I see they will use the Nikon glass and drive the focus motors as well. Thanks, Mike ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Jim, What makes you prefer Canon over Nikon? She has not used a Canon so we have no comparison. Very good point about the specialty glass. Thanks, Mike ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Jim Cathey wrote: > Neither one of us really knows a lot about equipment and such but we are >> learning. >> > > Nikon and Canon make the best glass. I prefer Canon, generally, > but Nikon's good too. If you do a lot of special-purpose photography, > which might use a specialist lens, shop the glass first and then > buy whatever body goes on it. > > The big advantage with Nikon is the ability to use the vast range of older lenses, much of which is still very good and far less expensive than it used to be. You do need a body with manaul controls to use the older glass. The ability to see what you are going to get in the electronic viewfinder is a big plus - you aren't waiting until you've developed the film to find out if you got the exposure right. The down side to the older glass is the lack of image stabilization, which is significant with the longer focal lengths. Nikon and Canon tend to have better mechanical construction than the primarily consumer brands. You want a focusing mount that isn't wobbly loose, and a smooth operating iris. There is a lot of amatuer owned glass out there that has had very light use. That having been said, I have a 180/2.8 Nikkor that was used by the Daily Oklahoman staff photogs that has a good 1/8th inch to wiggle at the far end of the lens that still produces some great images. I also have a pristine looking 55mm Micro-nikkor whose iris is stuck wide open, which limits its usefulness. The choice between Canon and Nikon is like the choice between Chevy and Ford - you'll like one or the other better - stick with what feels the best in your hand. > > Get an ultrabright RGB LED with a little controller to get the color you >> want. >> > > Read up on how color vision works first. Vison !== photochemical > reactions where subtlety is concerned, just because an RGB LED might > look white-ish, or any other-ish color you want, won't mean that it > appears the same to film or paper. They have their own sensitivities, > and have been developed over the years to react to light sources like > sunlight and incandescent lights, which resemble black-body radiators. > Things get weird under fluorescent light, for example, and LED's are > even worse monochromaticity-wise. > > Stick with what works, paper and film aren't getting any cheaper now! > > > I'm trying to make do with the equipment I have, as it was all high end stuff "back in the day" instead of buying a professional grade scanner for film, especially since I have a body of work in the larger formats. -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Neither one of us really knows a lot about equipment and such but we are learning. Nikon and Canon make the best glass. I prefer Canon, generally, but Nikon's good too. If you do a lot of special-purpose photography, which might use a specialist lens, shop the glass first and then buy whatever body goes on it. Get an ultrabright RGB LED with a little controller to get the color you want. Read up on how color vision works first. Vison !== photochemical reactions where subtlety is concerned, just because an RGB LED might look white-ish, or any other-ish color you want, won't mean that it appears the same to film or paper. They have their own sensitivities, and have been developed over the years to react to light sources like sunlight and incandescent lights, which resemble black-body radiators. Things get weird under fluorescent light, for example, and LED's are even worse monochromaticity-wise. Stick with what works, paper and film aren't getting any cheaper now! -- Jim ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Good point - I should dust off the color printing analyzer and see what I can measure with it. I have a 10 ft. stainless darkroom sink with stand that I would part with --- On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Dan Penoff wrote: > Yabbut if you have an analyzer it should pick up any differences between > light sources, I would think. The LEDs would probably be really cold or > blue in color, based on what I have seen of so called "white" LEDs. > > I used to have a full blown darkroom set up in the house I grew up in. It > was nice - running water, a really nice big stainless steel sink with > sideboards, hot water, etc. > > I never did color prints, as at the time (late 1970s) the technology was > pretty crude for the low-budget darkroom. I did a lot of B&W prints and > processed my own Ektachrome (E-4) which was pretty easy to do. > > That being said, there's a lot to be said for a really good lab when it > comes to doing it right. Nothing like a proof sheet you can send in with > instructions and get a really nicely done print back > > Dan > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 5:54 PM, OK Don wrote: > > > The dicroic filters in the colorhead will change the color mix - it will > be > > inetersting to see what comes out of the "white" LEDs, and how the color > > balance function on the camera handles it. It would be convenient to be > > able to work after sundown -- though some early enlargers did use "piped" > > sunlight as the light source. > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Rich Thomas < > > richthomas79td...@constructivity.net> wrote: > > > >> Get an ultrabright RGB LED with a little controller to get the color you > >> want. > >> > >> --R > >> > >> > >> On 1/6/12 4:25 PM, Fmiser wrote: > >> > >>> OK Don wrote: > I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for > duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and > brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my > negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating > lens. > > >>> Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White > >>> LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. > >>> They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key > >>> wavelengths. This is often close enough for general > >>> illumination, but not so good when combined with any other > >>> system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. > >>> > >>> This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a > >>> lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. > >>> > >>> Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. > >>> *smiles* > >>> > >>> -- Philip > >>> > >>> > > > > > > -- > > OK Don > > 2001 ML320 > > 1992 300D 2.5T > > 1990 300D 2.5T > > 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Yabbut if you have an analyzer it should pick up any differences between light sources, I would think. The LEDs would probably be really cold or blue in color, based on what I have seen of so called "white" LEDs. I used to have a full blown darkroom set up in the house I grew up in. It was nice - running water, a really nice big stainless steel sink with sideboards, hot water, etc. I never did color prints, as at the time (late 1970s) the technology was pretty crude for the low-budget darkroom. I did a lot of B&W prints and processed my own Ektachrome (E-4) which was pretty easy to do. That being said, there's a lot to be said for a really good lab when it comes to doing it right. Nothing like a proof sheet you can send in with instructions and get a really nicely done print back Dan On Jan 6, 2012, at 5:54 PM, OK Don wrote: > The dicroic filters in the colorhead will change the color mix - it will be > inetersting to see what comes out of the "white" LEDs, and how the color > balance function on the camera handles it. It would be convenient to be > able to work after sundown -- though some early enlargers did use "piped" > sunlight as the light source. > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Rich Thomas < > richthomas79td...@constructivity.net> wrote: > >> Get an ultrabright RGB LED with a little controller to get the color you >> want. >> >> --R >> >> >> On 1/6/12 4:25 PM, Fmiser wrote: >> >>> OK Don wrote: I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating lens. >>> Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White >>> LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. >>> They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key >>> wavelengths. This is often close enough for general >>> illumination, but not so good when combined with any other >>> system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. >>> >>> This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a >>> lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. >>> >>> Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. >>> *smiles* >>> >>> -- Philip >>> >>> > > > -- > OK Don > 2001 ML320 > 1992 300D 2.5T > 1990 300D 2.5T > 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
I have not looked but I would think you might be able to find datasheets for LEDs that would show their spectra, then you could twiddle with them to get your desired spectrum/a. --R On 1/6/12 5:54 PM, OK Don wrote: The dicroic filters in the colorhead will change the color mix - it will be inetersting to see what comes out of the "white" LEDs, and how the color balance function on the camera handles it. It would be convenient to be able to work after sundown -- though some early enlargers did use "piped" sunlight as the light source. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Rich Thomas< richthomas79td...@constructivity.net> wrote: Get an ultrabright RGB LED with a little controller to get the color you want. --R On 1/6/12 4:25 PM, Fmiser wrote: OK Don wrote: I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating lens. Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key wavelengths. This is often close enough for general illumination, but not so good when combined with any other system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. *smiles* -- Philip ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
It's that little 300w halogen projection bulb in the little metal box that I'm trying to get away from. It was nice when the ISO of the duplicating film was 2, but a bit of overkill now that I'm shooting at ISO 200. I keep a Tota-light around for bouncing off ceilings, etc. That 1kw bulb does get warm! On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Curt Raymond wrote: > For camera mounted lights LEDs have been a huge boon to the video world. > Of course we don't worry about color balance as much as filmies do... > > I've done a lot with halogen work lights, they're easy to mount light > boxes on too. Just be careful to provide enough ventilation so the tissue > paper (or whatever you're using) doesn't catch on fire. > > -Curt > > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:25:55 -0600 > From: Fmiser > To: Mercedes Discussion List > Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS? > Message-ID: <20120106152555.e246308a.fmi...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > OK Don wrote: > > > I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for > > duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and > > brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my > > negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating > > lens. > > Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White > LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. > They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key > wavelengths. This is often close enough for general > illumination, but not so good when combined with any other > system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. > > This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a > lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. > > Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. > *smiles* > > -- Philip > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
The dicroic filters in the colorhead will change the color mix - it will be inetersting to see what comes out of the "white" LEDs, and how the color balance function on the camera handles it. It would be convenient to be able to work after sundown -- though some early enlargers did use "piped" sunlight as the light source. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Rich Thomas < richthomas79td...@constructivity.net> wrote: > Get an ultrabright RGB LED with a little controller to get the color you > want. > > --R > > > On 1/6/12 4:25 PM, Fmiser wrote: > >> OK Don wrote: >>> I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for >>> duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and >>> brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my >>> negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating >>> lens. >>> >> Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White >> LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. >> They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key >> wavelengths. This is often close enough for general >> illumination, but not so good when combined with any other >> system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. >> >> This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a >> lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. >> >> Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. >> *smiles* >> >> -- Philip >> >> -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
For camera mounted lights LEDs have been a huge boon to the video world. Of course we don't worry about color balance as much as filmies do... I've done a lot with halogen work lights, they're easy to mount light boxes on too. Just be careful to provide enough ventilation so the tissue paper (or whatever you're using) doesn't catch on fire. -Curt Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:25:55 -0600 From: Fmiser To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS? Message-ID: <20120106152555.e246308a.fmi...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > OK Don wrote: > I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for > duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and > brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my > negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating > lens. Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key wavelengths. This is often close enough for general illumination, but not so good when combined with any other system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. *smiles* -- Philip ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Get an ultrabright RGB LED with a little controller to get the color you want. --R On 1/6/12 4:25 PM, Fmiser wrote: OK Don wrote: I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating lens. Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key wavelengths. This is often close enough for general illumination, but not so good when combined with any other system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. *smiles* -- Philip ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
> OK Don wrote: > I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for > duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and > brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my > negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating > lens. Good luck - but don't hold your breath on using LEDs. White LEDs, like florescent, do not create a continuous spectrum. They use a mixture of phosphors that create light at a few key wavelengths. This is often close enough for general illumination, but not so good when combined with any other system of recording key wavelengths - like film or digital. This doesn't mean it's a doomed project, but be prepared to do a lot of trial and error action to get something that looks good. Maybe since it doesn't have to be dark, rig it to use sunlight. *smiles* -- Philip ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
If anyone here has a dslr and/or other equipment my girl can use for her new photography career they are willing to part with please let me know. We don't have much money so not looking for real high end stuff, would be great if I could swap some w123 parts for stuff someone doesn't need. She is currently using a Kodak point and shoot and her employer's Nikon D5000. She loves the Nikon so we are leaning toward that brand and compatible lenses. She is also interested in the Olympus line as well. Neither one of us really knows a lot about equipment and such but we are learning. She has a knack for capturing some beautiful images and loves to do it. Currently she is photographing wine bottles for a winery to place on their website and finding that to be very difficult, especially the dark wines with shiny labels. She has a cheapo photo box and two compact flourescent lights. I am making her a "wall" with a hole for the lens to just pass through so as to eliminate reflections in front of the bottle and we are learning that we need to backlight the box as well as using diffused side lighting to get good results. So, if any of you have any tips I can pass on to her or equipment ypu would like to sell or trade please let me know. Thanks, Mike On Jan 6, 2012 2:43 PM, "OK Don" wrote: > I still have all the equipment for a decent darkroom - Leitz Focomat IIc, > Jobo processer, etc. I never did like the work from labs, except for custom > color printing labs - the4y were better than I was. > > I don't shoot cheap digi cams - but really like the Nikon D700. The best > part is the ability to use all the old Nikon film glass I have collected on > the years, including the fish eyes, long tellies, etc. My favorite prints > were made from 8X10 negatives, the second best were from the 500CM, > enlarged by the Focomat. > > I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for duplicating > slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and brightness) and see if I can > get good resulting copying my negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess > 1:1 duplicating lens. I have too many negs and slides to abandon in this > digital age, and too many to pay someone else to convert for me. > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Dan Penoff wrote: > > > Dwayne's does a great job if you are unable to find a local lab. > > > > I have a love/hate relationship with my Mamiya M645 Super and an RB67 > that > > I have borrowing rights for. > > > > I love to shoot film, but these cameras are so inconvenient to carry > > around (especially the RB67!) > > > > If I was on a leisurely vacation and not in a hurry I would definitely > > take them both along. > > > > For shooting the kid's soccer game, the digital Nikon comes out. > > > > Dan > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Jaime Kopchinski wrote: > > > > > That shot was taken with a digital camera, but there is still good > > support > > > for film and developing out there. Despite the bad press, Kodak and > Fuji > > > (and some other little guys) are making excellent modern films with > > > scanning in mind. > > > > > > I scan the film itself with a Epson flatbed scanner designed to do so. > > > Scanning prints requires good prints in the first place, which are > > > impossible to find at most mini labs out there. All they do is just > scan > > > the film and reprint it digitally, but with little regard for exposure > or > > > color correction. The result is usually terrible. > > > > > > I process all my own Black and White stuff, chemistry is easy to find. > > For > > > color, I was doing C41 and E6, but kits that cater to home development > > are > > > not so plentiful anymore. There is a local lab that will process C41 > for > > > $3/roll, so I just started bringing it there. For E6, I use Dwayne's > in > > > KS... they are the folks that were in the press last year for > processing > > > the last rolls of Kodachrome. > > > > > > Bring out the old cameras! With the right processes, the results are > > > wonderful. So nice, in fact, that you start to realize just how bad > > cheap > > > digital cameras are these days. > > > > > > Jaime > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:08 PM, OK Don wrote: > > > > > >> What are you using to scan - and are you scanning film or the prints? > Is > > >> chemistry still readily available? I recently moved my collection of > > film > > >> cameras, and am getting tempted to dust them off, clean the shutters, > > and > > >> run film through them again. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jaime Kopchinski > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> They're both 2007 models... W221 and C216. > > >>> > > >>> Heres a picture of the CL in the snow last year: > > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaimekop/5403428410/ > > >>> > > >>> Jaime > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> OK Don > > >> 2001 ML320 > > >> 1992 300 <1992300>D 2.5T > > >> 1990 300 <1990300>D 2.5T > > >> 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager > > >> _
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
I still have all the equipment for a decent darkroom - Leitz Focomat IIc, Jobo processer, etc. I never did like the work from labs, except for custom color printing labs - the4y were better than I was. I don't shoot cheap digi cams - but really like the Nikon D700. The best part is the ability to use all the old Nikon film glass I have collected on the years, including the fish eyes, long tellies, etc. My favorite prints were made from 8X10 negatives, the second best were from the 500CM, enlarged by the Focomat. I'm going to try converting the inverted color head I used for duplicating slides to LED illumination (to reduce heat and brightness) and see if I can get good resulting copying my negs and slides with the D700 and the Ziess 1:1 duplicating lens. I have too many negs and slides to abandon in this digital age, and too many to pay someone else to convert for me. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Dan Penoff wrote: > Dwayne's does a great job if you are unable to find a local lab. > > I have a love/hate relationship with my Mamiya M645 Super and an RB67 that > I have borrowing rights for. > > I love to shoot film, but these cameras are so inconvenient to carry > around (especially the RB67!) > > If I was on a leisurely vacation and not in a hurry I would definitely > take them both along. > > For shooting the kid's soccer game, the digital Nikon comes out. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Jaime Kopchinski wrote: > > > That shot was taken with a digital camera, but there is still good > support > > for film and developing out there. Despite the bad press, Kodak and Fuji > > (and some other little guys) are making excellent modern films with > > scanning in mind. > > > > I scan the film itself with a Epson flatbed scanner designed to do so. > > Scanning prints requires good prints in the first place, which are > > impossible to find at most mini labs out there. All they do is just scan > > the film and reprint it digitally, but with little regard for exposure or > > color correction. The result is usually terrible. > > > > I process all my own Black and White stuff, chemistry is easy to find. > For > > color, I was doing C41 and E6, but kits that cater to home development > are > > not so plentiful anymore. There is a local lab that will process C41 for > > $3/roll, so I just started bringing it there. For E6, I use Dwayne's in > > KS... they are the folks that were in the press last year for processing > > the last rolls of Kodachrome. > > > > Bring out the old cameras! With the right processes, the results are > > wonderful. So nice, in fact, that you start to realize just how bad > cheap > > digital cameras are these days. > > > > Jaime > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:08 PM, OK Don wrote: > > > >> What are you using to scan - and are you scanning film or the prints? Is > >> chemistry still readily available? I recently moved my collection of > film > >> cameras, and am getting tempted to dust them off, clean the shutters, > and > >> run film through them again. > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jaime Kopchinski > >> wrote: > >> > >>> They're both 2007 models... W221 and C216. > >>> > >>> Heres a picture of the CL in the snow last year: > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaimekop/5403428410/ > >>> > >>> Jaime > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> OK Don > >> 2001 ML320 > >> 1992 300 <1992300>D 2.5T > >> 1990 300 <1990300>D 2.5T > >> 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager > >> ___ > >> http://www.okiebenz.com > >> For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > >> > >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jaime Kopchinski > > http://www.jaimekop.com/ > > ___ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300 <1992300>D 2.5T 1990 300 <1990300>D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Dwayne's does a great job if you are unable to find a local lab. I have a love/hate relationship with my Mamiya M645 Super and an RB67 that I have borrowing rights for. I love to shoot film, but these cameras are so inconvenient to carry around (especially the RB67!) If I was on a leisurely vacation and not in a hurry I would definitely take them both along. For shooting the kid's soccer game, the digital Nikon comes out. Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Jaime Kopchinski wrote: > That shot was taken with a digital camera, but there is still good support > for film and developing out there. Despite the bad press, Kodak and Fuji > (and some other little guys) are making excellent modern films with > scanning in mind. > > I scan the film itself with a Epson flatbed scanner designed to do so. > Scanning prints requires good prints in the first place, which are > impossible to find at most mini labs out there. All they do is just scan > the film and reprint it digitally, but with little regard for exposure or > color correction. The result is usually terrible. > > I process all my own Black and White stuff, chemistry is easy to find. For > color, I was doing C41 and E6, but kits that cater to home development are > not so plentiful anymore. There is a local lab that will process C41 for > $3/roll, so I just started bringing it there. For E6, I use Dwayne's in > KS... they are the folks that were in the press last year for processing > the last rolls of Kodachrome. > > Bring out the old cameras! With the right processes, the results are > wonderful. So nice, in fact, that you start to realize just how bad cheap > digital cameras are these days. > > Jaime > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:08 PM, OK Don wrote: > >> What are you using to scan - and are you scanning film or the prints? Is >> chemistry still readily available? I recently moved my collection of film >> cameras, and am getting tempted to dust them off, clean the shutters, and >> run film through them again. >> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jaime Kopchinski >> wrote: >> >>> They're both 2007 models... W221 and C216. >>> >>> Heres a picture of the CL in the snow last year: >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaimekop/5403428410/ >>> >>> Jaime >> >> >> >> >> -- >> OK Don >> 2001 ML320 >> 1992 300D 2.5T >> 1990 300D 2.5T >> 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager >> ___ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >> > > > > -- > Jaime Kopchinski > http://www.jaimekop.com/ > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
That shot was taken with a digital camera, but there is still good support for film and developing out there. Despite the bad press, Kodak and Fuji (and some other little guys) are making excellent modern films with scanning in mind. I scan the film itself with a Epson flatbed scanner designed to do so. Scanning prints requires good prints in the first place, which are impossible to find at most mini labs out there. All they do is just scan the film and reprint it digitally, but with little regard for exposure or color correction. The result is usually terrible. I process all my own Black and White stuff, chemistry is easy to find. For color, I was doing C41 and E6, but kits that cater to home development are not so plentiful anymore. There is a local lab that will process C41 for $3/roll, so I just started bringing it there. For E6, I use Dwayne's in KS... they are the folks that were in the press last year for processing the last rolls of Kodachrome. Bring out the old cameras! With the right processes, the results are wonderful. So nice, in fact, that you start to realize just how bad cheap digital cameras are these days. Jaime On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:08 PM, OK Don wrote: > What are you using to scan - and are you scanning film or the prints? Is > chemistry still readily available? I recently moved my collection of film > cameras, and am getting tempted to dust them off, clean the shutters, and > run film through them again. > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jaime Kopchinski > wrote: > > > They're both 2007 models... W221 and C216. > > > > Heres a picture of the CL in the snow last year: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaimekop/5403428410/ > > > > Jaime > > > > > -- > OK Don > 2001 ML320 > 1992 300D 2.5T > 1990 300D 2.5T > 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- Jaime Kopchinski http://www.jaimekop.com/ ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
[MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
What are you using to scan - and are you scanning film or the prints? Is chemistry still readily available? I recently moved my collection of film cameras, and am getting tempted to dust them off, clean the shutters, and run film through them again. On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jaime Kopchinski wrote: > They're both 2007 models... W221 and C216. > > Heres a picture of the CL in the snow last year: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaimekop/5403428410/ > > Jaime -- OK Don 2001 ML320 1992 300D 2.5T 1990 300D 2.5T 1997 Plymouth Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
