ilya_khotimsky

I just bought Bronica SQ-Ai with 120 film back atached, but no dark slide. The dark slide itself is $40, but there are a lot of 220 film backs with the dark slide for about $20. Even though the 220 film backs are of limited use today due to the 220 film discontinued, it still makes more sense to get the 220 film back with the dark slide instead of just the dark slide. Question 1: are the dark slides for 120 film back and 220 film backs the same? Question 2: can you remove the dark slide from the film back which is detached from the camera? The manual says you can not. How about when you don't have the film inside? If I can't remove the dark slide without attaching the film back to the camera first, buying 220 film back with dark slide will do me no good.

<p>Hello! I found a Bronica SQ-b body for sale. The description say it has a plastic ground glass. I not sure what type of ground glass is standard on this camera. Are all Bronicas SQ-b have plastic one or some have plastic and some have glass? Those who have had this camera, please, help.</p>

<p>Thank you for all your responses!</p>

Hello! I am thinking of getting a 6x9 camera and trying to decide between G690 series and its successor GW690. As far as I understand, both are fully mechanical cameras. The main difference is that the first takes interchangeable lenses and the second doesn't. G690 is an older design, so potentially it is more likely to have dust, fungus and some mechanical problems. GW690 is 10-15 years newer and also way more common on eBay. Is there any other differences I have to think about? Please, share your experiences with these models.

<p>Thank you for your responses. I am thinking of 5D not because it's the cheapest Canon's full frame at the moment, but because of it unique pixel pitch it might have some image quality advantage over the newer full frames, such as 5D mark ii, mark iii or 6D. If it does have the advantage, I would consider buying 5D simply because in 3-5-7 years there will be hardly any left in the working condition. So far, most people here think there isn't really any color/image quality superiority of 5D over the newer and more advanced full-frame Canons. let's see if anyone thinks differently.</p>

<p>Dear forum:<br> Here I am talking about the original, old Canon 5D, a 12.8 Mpx camera. No "mark', just 5D. It was Canon's first full frame DSLR. 12.8 megapixels on the full-frame seem like a joke today, when even crop-sensor cameras have 16-18 Mpx or even more. However, I heard that this low pixel count on 5D actually has a certain advantage. It means that each pixel is larger, "fatter" than any pixel on a modern DSLR, so 5D is capable of creating the most amazing color and tone because of it. I know this is subjective, but I would appreciate if anybody who has had the old 5D can share their opinions about this. In other words, is old 5D worth buying today for the magic color of it's big pixels? Thank you in advance, Ilya</p>

<p>Rob, are you talking about wet prints in B&W or color? I have done B&W, but have no experience of printing color. Do you have to do a lot of color correction? On average, how many prints do you need to make from one negative to get it right in terms of exposure and color? I heard some people saying they spend the whole night in the darkroom and have 6-8 keepers at the end. I'd appreciate your input.</p>

<p>Thank you everybody for your recommendations!<br> I see there are a lot of options today regarding the image capture and subsequent printing. I see at least 5: digital image to inkjet print, digital to laser optical print, film-scan to inkjet, film-scan to laser optical and the last, but not least-film straight to the paper without scanning. <br> Regarding the scanner: I am thinking of getting one. Goal number one is to scan a bunch of my old 35mm negatives, some B&W, some color, some slides. Goal number two is to scan medium format film which I am planning to start shooting. So, a scanner with 35mm and medium format capabilities will be needed. </p>

<p>Actually I found ONE link to a lab that claims they do true optical prints. They say: "your images are projected through a lens directly onto photo paper, providing a unique analog quality that's hard to find in the digital world". Here is the link: http://www.bluemooncamera.com/120DevIH.php<br> Has anyone tried their services?</p>

<p>I am thinking about getting back to film photography. Back in my high school years in 1990s, I could develop my own B&W film and make traditional optical prints using an enlarger at home. For the color film, I just took pictures, then brought the film to the lab to develop and make prints. I have never knew for sure how those color prints were made, but I assumed there was a printing machine passing the light through the color negative (using the color correction if necessary) exposing the color photographic paper, then the prints went thought the developer and fixer, were washed, dried and then the prints were ready. Correct me if i am wrong. As of today, to my knowledge this process is not available anymore. At least, I don't know any commercial lab in the US that does that kind of "wet optical printing". Nowadays, they will develop the film, then scan the negatives and then either print them on an inkjet printer as digital files, or use the LightJet or the <a title="Durst" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durst#Lambda_and_Theta_photographic_printers">Lambda</a> <a title="RGB" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB">RGB</a> lasers to expose light-sensitive paper, which then gets developed. Even though the labs keep on calling the second process "traditional optical printing", it is not quite traditional, because it's not the negative itself, but its scanned digital copy is printed. So, does that mean that we no longer have a true analog color printing available? Does that mean the scanning is an inevitable step between the color negative and the print? My understanding is that in such a case the quality of the scanning determines the quality of your final print. Do we loose something, like the dynamic range, colors or the unique "film look" because of the scanning? Or maybe scanning is actually an advantage, because now we can color-correct the film scan in the Lightroom or Photoshop? Please, share your thoughts.</p>