Mike Howard

By far the new.

<p>I spent the last two years neglecting my love for film photography. Got caught up in the ease of use, you might say, of digital while traveling. Don't get me wrong, I love all photography, but I really enjoy working in the darkroom. So, as we speak, my darkroom is all set up, and I have 16 rolls of slide film queued to process over the next couple of days. I'm also going to be printing a large portion of my backlog before I go back to work next week. <br /><br />Having said that, my three scheduled vacation trips for 2017 will be all film. I'm in the process of checking the film inventory in my fridge, cleaning up the cameras, and planning day stops in and around Vegas, San Francisco, and El Paso. Mind you, I have hundreds of digital pictures of everything within 100 miles of Vegas, but very little on film. No more chimping while on vacation, just slow methodical looks at everything I missed. Nothing like great western sunrises and sunsets on slides. Ahhhh....<br /><br />And Norm, I love that shot. A great big print would look wonderful on the wall.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have the EM10. It is a great camera, I'm sure the EM10-II is as well. Most of my photography is while hiking or on vacation, so I need small. I've been using m4/3s since the EP-2 and I've never looked back. The range of lenses is very good and within the range there are budget options that I find to be very good. <br /><br />Before the Oly, I used Pentax APS-C. From that transition, with the latest models, I see no difference in picture quality, but I save about 5 pounds that I no longer have to lug around. You don't save very much space/weight in the bodies, but you save a large amount in the lenses. I also adapt Konica Hexanon lenses to my Oly on occasion.<br /><br />I will probably never go full frame, as I see no benefit to it for my photography. Others will be just the opposite. Take a look on flickr and other sights and get an idea of what your photos can look like, if they suit your needs. You should also try to get your hands on an EM10 to see if the ergonomics works for you, they are small and those with large hands have some difficulties. Personally for me, it is perfect, and far superior to the A7 which quite frankly I hated. <br /><br />On another note, if you get an EM10, do you like shooting zooms or primes, or a mix? The m4/3s line is stronger on primes than on zooms, though there is still a decent selection.<br /><br />flickr.com/photos/mhowardphoto</p>

<p>You're going to have to describe your process in way more detail than that if you want useful answers.<br> 1. What developer and fixer, what concentrations, and were they new product? Include temp/times for each step.<br> 2. What film, shot at what ISO? Old expired film or new, in date stock?<br> 3. Known working camera or "new" camera, first film through?</p> <p>Looking at your picture, the edge markings are developed so the developer was at least working. Looks like possibly some artifacts from poor agitation technique. Possibly under fixed as well. The main thing is it looks like it was never exposed in camera, or was so underexposed that there is no trace of image. What were the conditions under which you shot the film? Did you use a working meter? Is the shutter firing on that camera? I doubt water stop had anything to do with it, unless there was so much developer left in the tank when it went to fix that it was contaminated.</p>

<p>Those are focus confirmation "stripes". It lets you know where in the image the camera is calculating focus. This feature should be able to be toggled on/off, probably deep in the settings menu.</p>

<p>Valley of Fire, near Las Vegas, NV</p><div></div>

<p>Scanned images almost always require post processing, it's the nature of the beast. Unless you have a perfect image capture and perfect developing process for a given film type that matches the scanner's specs (nearly zero percent chance) it is unavoidable. The image I posted above was processed using my "standard" scan process, which is basically a small contrast adjustment and a small amount of sharpening. The scan still managed to capture a fair amount of detail throughout the range. It is hard to show it in a 700px file on a screen.</p> <p>I suspect Ian's scans have little to no post processing, but the second one seems so flat that it may not show much range even after post processing. I had a roll turn out that way once from a trip to Wales, I never could get much out of it. The roll was underexposed and under developed, on a very flat lighting day. I couldn't wet print much of it either. </p>

<p>I agree with Les, I can get much better scans on my lowly V600. Part of it has to do with film type and how developed. It is no less complicated than getting good wet prints in both color and B&W. At times, it is more complicated. I also use the better scanning holders with glass, but I use the Epson software, as I found Vuescan didn't do enough for me on my 3170. I may try it again someday.</p><div></div>

<p>These can be heat staked on the little pins, I've used a million of them. Use a flat iron or a soldering iron with a flat tip on low-medium heat, works fine.</p>

<p>Christos, I had three TC bodies that did exactly the same thing. You don't see it without film, because there is no tension on the take up spool. It is a fault with the gearing in the film advance/shutter cocking mechanism. Take a roll of film, put it in the camera, and for the first 10 frames, very carefully and methodically actuate the advance lever, smoothly and completely, at the same speed each time. You will occasionally feel very small "tugs", this is the damaged gearing. The shutter is not FULLY wound when this happens, resulting in one curtain never opening. I never bothered with fixing these cameras, I simply threw them away. I have two TC bodies right now that work perfectly, so I am content.</p>

<p>Those don't look like scratches, they look like water marks...or, from wiping the film. Did you wipe the film when wet to get off most of the water? That's what it looks like to me.</p>

<p>Mr. Burke, I think the transition Photo.net has taken was more a natural course kind of thing, and I don't place any blame on the new management. There are still, after all, filmy forums here to peruse, but not a lot of participation. Seems there was a small uptick with a few youngsters trying to get some answers, but it got lost in the noise. I remember the Greenspun to Josh Root days very fondly, and was a frequent participant in the often very noisome forum discussions, having had my hands slapped once or twice. The dreaded Off-Topic forum was perhaps my favorite on this site, it was a great place for photographers to talk about other stuff for a long time, then it seemed to devolve into a giant black hole of rude behavior.</p> <p>Lex and others tried to get things settled down, in very different ways, but it wasn't to be. I do still peruse the weekly photo displays, especially those involving m4/3s, which I have and love, and a few others. Rick Drawbridge is absolutely fantastic with his old camera finds, and Sanford Edelstein has brought a great way to display weekly photos for us little camera users. So, there are still some Greats here. I always try to read anything from Gerry Siegel, he has a fun mind. Matt Laur is on the cutting edge of dronery (see what I did there, Matt?).</p> <p>Arthur, as far as usability, I find Flickr to be the best, while others despise it. APUG is an old school forum with old school people, but great for technical help with old world photography. Rowland Mowrey is still a very frequent participant there. Facebook is, well, Facebook, love it or hate it. But it's the best way I know to keep up with old friends. Lex is currently working on a fantastic series (intentional or not) of street art where he lives. He has a shiny red bike that he is working on wearing the tires out on. It's funny, being the type of person I am, I have grown very fond of Lex and his words and pictures of wisdom, and consider him a good friend, though I've never met him. </p>

<p>Lex, Larry, Simon, Matt, I, and many others, are on facebook and frequently "challenge" each other. Feel free to go on and friend request any of us, we won't bite. Actually, it would be nice to hear from some of you more often. Between APUG, Flickr, Facebook, and a few other hobby sites, I don't have time to check in here as often as I'd like. I still shoot mainly film, and as others have noted above, there just isn't very much here for filmies anymore. The only thing I really follow much here anymore is the m4/3's and mirrorless forums and weeklies.</p>

<p>David, that shot with the Konica 200/4 is outstanding. It inspires me to hook mine up to my Oly E-M10, which for some reason I haven't done yet.</p>