Paul Lewis1664881697

I need to create some Kodalith-like 35mm negatives for a project that I'm working on. I am shooting black and white printed material and have used Rollei Ortho 25 previously. While the contrast is very good, the white areas are not clear. I'd like to get the look of Kodalith, where black is black and white is clear. Can Rollei Ortho 25 be processed in a way to mimic Kodalith? I know that I can get some really old Kodalith spooled into 35mm canisters. I'm not as concerned about the age of the film as I am finding a place to process the film using the kodalith developer. I don't process my own film... I'd rather pay to have it done. Any suggestions?

Thanks, Gerry. An electronics expert or someone that has done work with Pocketwizards, or something similar, for remote control purposes would be helpful, and I'll go that route. I mention "crash camera", because this camera may not survive due to rough handling. Hence, a $40-60 compact film camera is a good option (along with the fact that I would like to keep the look consistent with my other images).

Some additional thoughts: If the camera is to be triggered remotely, how do I deal with the "half-press" shutter release that most compact cameras have? I won't need to use "half-press", but how do I overcome it? Can I use a radio trigger in conjunction with a relay to trigger the shutter release? I'm not an electronics expert, as you probably already guessed.

Hello all, I have a project for which I have need of a radio-triggered "crash camera". As you read, it may seem like a digital camera is the answer for this situation, but the other photos in this project are film-based, and I have no desire to use digital. The camera will be mounted on a moving vehicle and need to be triggered remotely. Since people here often use radio triggers, I thought this would be the best forum in which to ask. Infrared isn't an option for the trigger since I won't be facing the camera. Camera specs: Camera needs to be inexpensive Camera lens needs to be around f2.8 Camera needs to be automatic wind and autofocus Camera must be reasonably small. An SLR is not an option here. Camera needs to be triggered remotely from a distance of about 150 ft. I'm willing to open camera and re-wire shutter release switch. Camera doesn't need to survive this project. Radio specs: Two PocketWizard Plus II radio transmitters I'm willing to buy new radio triggers The type of camera that I'm thinking would be good for this project is a Canon AF35M. Good lens, automatic wind, autofocus, reasonably small. I could really use some advice about triggering a compact camera such as the AF35M (am open to other possibilities!). Any assistance would be appreciated! Thanks, Paul

Do you shoot E6 regularly? A good meter is crucial. I tend to avoid high contrast scenes with bright skies. If the sky is bright, I try to make sure that my foreground objects are brightly lit also.

Trust me, I'm a Gitzo fan, and have used this tripod exclusively for over ten years, paired with a fantastic Markins ball head. It's sturdy, reliable, strong, and extremely well-built. It's Italian... the Ferrari of tripods. It's not going anywhere, and will continue to be used for most purposes, but traveling by plane and on-foot is no picnic. With the head attached, it's 29" long. The only way for me to travel with it is to fit it in my suitcase diagonally with the head off. I'd prefer to have a tripod that I can fit into a shoulder bag. After giving it some more thought, I'm considering a Gitzo Traveller paired with a smaller Markins head. Pricey stuff, so I have to decide how much use I can get out of it. A tripod that size and weight would enable me to carry it anywhere I go without debating at the hotel or car whether I really feel like carrying it around. Regarding a camera.... the F4S is the ideal SLR for me. The F100 is not an option due to the lack of dust seals on the film back and the fact that it's menu driven. I do a lot of low light and nighttime photography, and the physical knobs of the F4 are a big plus. I'm getting myself a small rangefinder and will get a smaller Nikon body. I think it's going to be an F4 without the battery pack. Love the F3, but it lacks AF and Matrix Metering (I shoot chromes). Nikon FA lacks AF (which I use occasionally).

I own a Gitzo carbon fiber (Mountaineer?) that I love, but I need something very small for travelling. My regular camera is quite heavy (Nikon F4S), but for travelling, I plan on using either a Nikon F4 with a smaller lens (and without the extra battery pack and L bracket) and a compact point and shoot or rangefinder. I'm considering a Mefoto aluminum tripod. Size and weight are fine for me (I'd probably go with the Backpack version). How is the reliability and stability? They have a new, smaller line called the Air which has legs without individual locks. The whole leg twists and locks in place. Here's the page: MeFOTO Air Any experience with the classic Mefoto tripods or the new Air?

Thanks for the suggestion. The Pentax MX certainly does look like a small SLR, however there are no problems acquiring working SLRs these days. There is a profound lack of quality compact cameras with a fixed lens. The prices for unreliable, used ones has gone through the roof. Want a Contax T3 that can't be repaired? $1000 - $1500 !

Right, no exposure lock. Even though I don't shoot much negative film, I suspect a half-stop wouldn't bother anyone shooting those films. Especially if it's a half-stop overexposure.

Good point. The cell is on the front of the lens. I don't think I can expect this to be as accurate as a spot, center-weight or matrix meter inside an SLR prism or off the shutter. I searched for everything I could find about user feedback regarding the meter in the Contax T and only found positive comments. Of course, one's mileage may vary. These users' experience may not necessarily apply to use with chromes or difficult lighting situations.

The sun was behind me, illuminating the skyline. The blue sky is mostly washed out. I'm going to test the camera again in flat, diffused light, as you suggested, with five different ISOs and see if it's at least consistent.

After giving this some more thought, I think a valid next test of this camera (besides shooting the same scene with a different camera) is to shoot the same photo with different manual ISO settings, for instance 100 speed film at ISO 64, 80, 100, 125 and 160 and determine which ISO provides the best exposure. And do this test at F2.8, F8 and F16 to see if it's linear. Not a fan of this type of compensation long-term.

Hello all, I have a well-maintained Contax T rangefinder with the drawbridge lens (NOT a T2/T3/etc.) that I purchased recently. All functions appear normal. I shot a roll of Provia 100F on near sunset with a cloudless sky and had it processed by a reputable processor. I took about 6 different test shots with each at every F stop from F2.8 to F16. I have a lot of experience shooting chromes, and to my eyes, these slides appear to be about 1/2 to 1 stop overexposed. I'm using two SR44 (1.55v) batteries as specified in the manual. Batteries are new in package, produced by Exell. No filter on lens. Fresh film. Questions: 1. Am I spoiled by using a Nikon F4 with a matrix meter for so many years that I am expecting too much from the Contax T with its spot metering? The F4 is a metering genius. Even my Lomo LC-A does a nice job with chromes. Perhaps I can use two cameras and compare results. 2. Are the SR44 batteries the way to go? The manual states that SR44 (1.55v) or LR44 (1.5v) are OK. 3. Is this the norm for a Contax T since results could be satisfactory with negative film? 4. Where is the meter located in the viewfinder? I practiced aiming at a lightbulb and it seems like the spot meter area is slightly below the rangefinder patch. I'm tempted to buy another Contax T in order to compare to this one. I really like the camera's manual functions and portability. Anyone have experience shooting chromes regularly with a Contax T?

I shoot E6 90% of the time, and almost exclusively Provia 100F and 400X (what I have left in the freezer). I have everything processed by Dwayne's in Kansas and get excellent results with their processing and service. Metering is key with E6. As is trying to avoid high contrast scenes in daylight, but I would try to avoid that in most cases anyway. Most of my use of E6 is with low sun, overcast skies, low light and long exposure. All E6 isn't the same, just as Portra and Superia different looks. If you don't prefer the ultra color of Velvia, give Provia a try. The joy of looking at a well-composed and well-exposed slide is unmatched. It makes me wish that I shot medium format so I can see them even larger!

I strongly disagree with the inclusion of DX functionality and have always loathed that function in any camera. It complicates the design of the camera since not only DX reading is necessary, but also requires an override, as you mentioned. I think manual ISO with a wide range of settings is preferable. I agree that full manual control (of aperture and shutter speed) is desirable. Meter display via LCD is sufficient. I think center-weight metering (80/20 for instance) is preferable to center spot metering. I think we should keep in mind that the cameras that are highly sought after today are the ones with a Zeiss lens. Those cameras (Contax T2 and T3 for example) routinely sell for $500-1000 on the used market, so I don't think there is resistance. To answer your question, if an Olympus XA (first model) camera were available today, I expect that it would sell for $400+. For guidance, a much simpler camera, Lomo LC-A, sells for $229 retail. The Lomo does not have a metal body, has plastic knobs, no auto focus, zone-focusing, a cheap lens and questionable reliability. A Nikon FM10 (without a lens) retails for $500. Do you expect that this hypothetical camera, with a high quality lens could or should retail for less than that?