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
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
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,
When I was into B 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
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
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
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.
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:
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
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
> 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.
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
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
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
> I didn't realize that there was anything other than B 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
I'm going to use the Indie Film lab: https://youtu.be/TCxoZlFqzwA
About $16/roll for the B stuff I bought. Until I went to buy film I didn't
realize that there was anything other than B in 120. I've never used color in
one.
-Curt
On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 2:17:30 PM EDT, Jim Cathey
> 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
___
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
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
> 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
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
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, Mountain Man maontin@gmail.com 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
List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, Mountain Man maontin@gmail.com 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
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
Larry l02tur...@comcast.net 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
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,
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 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
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.
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
astrasfo...@gmail.comwrote:
I have a Nikon N 2000 SLR film SLR camera with the f1.4 50 mm, 28mm
f3.5, and 200mm f 4.0
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 lwb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Check KEH to get an idea of prices.
Do understand that their grading
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
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
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 astrasfo...@gmail.com 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
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.
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 g_010...@hotmail.com wrote:
I believe one of the traits for those of us with old
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 okd...@gmail.com wrote:
1000
On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, Mountain Man maontin@gmail.com 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
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 apchamberl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012 1:29 PM, Mountain Man maontin@gmail.com wrote:
Who takes pictures these days?
*raises
On Jan 10, 2012 11:45 AM, Dan Penoff lwb...@yahoo.com 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
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
I never really did like any of the Kodak BW 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 lwb...@yahoo.com writes:
I
I pretty much stuck with Ilford for paper and chemistry, but I really got to
know the lower ASA BW 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
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
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
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Fmiser fmi...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Jim Cathey j...@windwireless.net 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(or
whatever you're using) doesn't catch on fire.
-Curt
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:25:55 -0600
From: Fmiser fmi...@gmail.com
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras, was: Is this BS?
Message-ID: 20120106152555.e246308a.fmi...@gmail.com
Content-Type
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
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 fmi...@gmail.com
To: Mercedes Discussion List mercedes@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT - film cameras
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
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
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 lwb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yabbut if you have an analyzer it should pick up any
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
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Jim Cathey j...@windwireless.net 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,
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
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.
Michael Canfield slozuk...@gmail.com 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
On Jan 6, 2012 7:46 PM, OK Don okd...@gmail.com 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
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
67 matches
Mail list logo
