gerald_di_giampaolo Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 <p>I shoot both 35mm and medium format E6. When I lived in Pittsburgh, I sent my film to Praus Productions in Rochester, NY. They were reasonably priced, had quick turn around, and did a superb job at processing and handling the film. I recently moved to the Texas Hill Country and use Holland Photo in Austin. They also do superb work and are very quick. They have a mailing system using small self-addressed cardboard boxes for film. It works well. When traveling requires the use of mailers, I'll use Dale Labs in Florida. I can recommend these labs with confidence. <br> My favorite part of photography is projecting slides, especially medium format. <br> Jerry</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 <p>Dale labs is pretty good and I think they still will process bulk loaded Movie films....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_atzberger1 Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 <p>Well,</p> <p><img src="http://arf-images.smugmug.com/Other/San-Clemente/615129557wmPt3-L/615129557_wmPt3-L-1.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Any Questions??</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 <p>Yes And your point is?<br> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3760356353_11996319b2_o.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="1185" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_lane2 Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 <p>I still shoot slides because I love to project them. In my opinion, nothing tops projection. Colors are so vibrant, images are very sharp and no post processing is needed. And then there are the film cameras themselves, which I still really enjoy using.</p> <p>I also use a digital SLR, but the majority of time I treat it like my 'funcam'. There have been a couple of occasions when I have taken it as a serious method of image capture. But when I like to get serious about my photography, I almost always use slide film.</p> <p>Regards, Steve.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_atzberger1 Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 <p>I too use digital a lot, but when I'm serious about color, it's Velvia all the way. I just haven't seen anything that matches it for color saturation and definition. I miss K200 too -- nothing else pulls life out of drab winter scenes like it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wynston Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 <p>Oops! Forgot to say that there is also the lasting power of slides. The attached scan is an extremely accurate rendition of the original slide which I took on Ektachrome X 40 years ago and scanned a few months ago.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wynston Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 <p>Soory folks. Hopefully I got it right this time.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_matic Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 <p>whowould want a plainold JPEG file when you could have the glory of a projected Velvia slide or the beaty of a 645 on a light table?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillary_charles Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 <p>I continue to shoot stereo (3D) slides with vintage 1950s cameras. IMO, no digital 3D display has yet matched the impact of these slides as seen with a good viewer. The "you are there" feeling is overwhelming, impressing even every pro photographer who sees them. Mostly I've been using Kodachrome, but have been drifting toward Astia as the end of K-chrome approaches. <br> Even projecting them (with polarizing glasses like at the movies) has a profound effect. Though great results can be accomplished digitally these days, there's nothing like the basic simplicity and purity of a projected transparency. I'll be shooting slides as long as possible.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_peterson3 Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 <p>Until I got a D3x, Kodachrome 64, scanned on a Nikon cs9000, offered the best image I could get from a 35mm camera. I'm now completely out of K64, but Ektar 100 has reignited my interest in film. I think I'll still miss K64 though:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terence_spross1 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>Like Hillary's post, I frequently use a Kodak Stereo camera.<br> I can't afford to switch to digital now. Eventually my stereo shots will be scanned to digital for use with the promised new HD 3D monitors. Also, I use slide film in my Minolta occasionally when I know there will be enough of a single subject for projection.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_matic Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>no offence<br> but you will have a lot of trouble in getting a sterio image to work with a new 3d monitor as you will have to mess about with complex stuff such as polarisation seperation and the like<br> i would stick with a viewer anyways</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synyan Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 <p>I am from China and through one of the largest forum I found this thread. I used to have several digital small cameras (such as LX-3, Canon A70, Canon Pro-1 and so on) and DSLRs (such as Nikon D80). I have to admit that the digital cameras are very convenient, especially for us who do not have enough time in going to the photo shops. However recently I picked up one Chinese made very old SLR. It is primitive compare to modern cameras, but I enjoyed so much. Now I have found that more and more China's 80s and 90s had already left digital cameras aside and bought second hand cameras, such as M3, M6, Mamiya, Phenix series, Seagull DF, Agfa super Sillette, Contax T2, etc etc.... By using these cameras they've created magnificent and although may not be perfect but unique photos that modern light-medium DSLR could not compare. Moreover, the price of shooting with slides and old SLR is still cheaper compare to the body of such as 5D Mark II and lenses such as Nikkor 24-70/2.8G...But the effect is the same or even better. <br> <br /> Thank you all guys for reading my craps and enjoy your life with your most handy camera (which's the essence of the photography :-) )<br> <br /> <strong>Seagull DF-2000A + 24-70mm/3.5-4.5 + Fuji Superia 200 + Fuji Frontier 570</strong><br /> <img src="https://bpwlzw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mrsZ4mMS1ieH1J_cPRdcUCsFZ8xJUNiHgnoxsho2WgpsTB5U49bfJyKSobamIKme6Q3Mf0XzrtW0L2YF0zZ9uZQ6bptd5bhb1WFAN_oN041vcKvrT94qppPBcHVUzlpbq6OSVWUMyBd_fQQNjiYbq4A/000042_1024_thumb[3].png" alt="" width="600" height="403" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 <p>John Shen<br> Are there any Slide films still made in China? I love the B&W film from China. It has a very unique look.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithsizzers Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 <p>My film cameras came with a "normal" perspective lens, none slower than f/1.8, that produce very sharp slides; digital cameras come with a heavy zoom, none faster than f/3.5, that produce images of so-so sharpness. Several big-name digital camera manufacturers still don't even make a fast normal prime lens, and those that do want as many dollars for the lens as they do for the body AND the kit zoom. Does that make sense?<br> My film cameras were manufactured out of metal about 20 years ago, and are still reliable today (true, they have had some maintenance over the years) - how many of the digital cameras sold today will still be working 20 years from now?<br> I can't justify retiring my perfectly serviceable Japanese metal and glass, and going into debt for Chinese plastic that won't take any better pictures than what I'm getting now - with equipment that was paid for long ago.<br> So for a non-professional who has limited funds to spend on my hobby, shooting slides is mostly a matter of economics, but also of esthetics. I enjoy the fine materials, craftsmanship and elegance of a classic manual camera, as well as the simplicity of operation. By searching out used equipment, I was able to put together a kit of two bodies, 3 primes, and a zoom (all Pentax) for less than what a good digital body would cost today.<br> And when I want to see my stuff projected at 50"x50" my old Kodak Carousel still makes pretty - have you seen the prices of digital projectors? I can buy a lot of chrome film and E6 processing for what it would cost me to "upgrade" to digital. With my film scanner and Photoshop I can fool around with digital post-processing, while still enjoying my classic cameras in the field.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synyan Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 <p>RE <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=829026">Larry Dressler</a>:<br> The answer is: YES!</p> <p>There are still two major film makers, naming: Lucky and Gongyuan (Era). Lucky is much bigger, while in my personal opinion Gongyuan's B&W (and the only product of it) is more beautiful (they imported Fuji technique in 1980s and mixed with domestic techniques) </p> <p>Lucky films (colour):<br> <img src="http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1000/20080926/001ec949ffcb0a46ba530b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /><br> B&W:<br> <img src="http://61.129.34.106/zhjp/tuwen/A_013/IMG_9888.jpg" alt="" width="602" height="402" /><br> Gongyuan (Era) films<br> <img src="http://img02.taobaocdn.com/bao/uploaded/i2/T1y1VXXeFsXXbcCOg7_065109.jpg_160x160.jpg" alt="" width="160" height="141" /></p> <p>Price is still very cheap: $1 - $1.2 per roll.</p> <p>Unfortunately, even Kodak and Fuji film cannot fight against the digitalization of all photography industry from kids camera toys to professional top-end makers such as Nikon and even Leica. For this reason, the two Chinese big film makers have stepped near an edge of bankruptcy only because government wants to save it could it survive. It is a "lucky" for all Chinese though, that we still have our "own" film industry which is very important. </p> <p>Fujifilm also has a redistribution centre in South West China who is dedicated to produce Superia 100 and 200 film, but we also could see films from Vietnam recently. </p> <p>Generally speaking all kinds of films are much hard to find. In medium cities there are hardly any shops who are selling them, and to print them out in a fine quality level is also proved very hard. Ppls have to use ebay (or ebay's powerful Chinese competitor whose name is Taobao) to purchase from Shanghai or Beijing bigger shop, and mail them back for a developing, and then waiting for another mailing back of one scanned DVD plus slides. Cheaper way would be purchasing a no-cheap film-scanner and scan by himself after developing (such as me)</p> <p>Though, there are still a few very famous shops in Shanghai who has proved themselves very successful when whole film industry is dying. Name: Shanghai Elite, Shanghai Green, Beijing Xiangshenghang. etc. I've seen so many foreigners who brought their lomo cameras into these shops. </p> <p>Once again, as a courtesy to all friends and masters of films here, A film-photo is presented below (A salute when we post or reply one thread in Chinese photography forum)</p> <p><strong>(Vanta G-5 + Luxitar 28-70mm/f3.5-4.5 + Lucky 100 + CanoScan 8800F)</strong></p> An old carpenter is hired for a major renovation of ancient Huishan town in Wuxi city before applying for Unisco World Heritage <p><img src="https://bpwlzw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1m_6V8MlU4FRxdHJ6m9Y83JVC6ajDVRO0i_YijFe7N6Hv6dOpap15MVUE_wkrWw5cGhVCveKtYX30MxnxfEszq3qtb3NrqWeFihCD_98P59SRj5-8IjaaCFb2POdnRmn4Lic9VA9yT8IdcBb6geHhcdQ/%E6%9C%AA%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98-9_1600[12].jpg" alt="" width="600" height="418" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synyan Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 <p>Dear <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=569570">Gary Wright</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, </p> <p>I agree with most of your words, except for this:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I can't justify retiring my perfectly serviceable Japanese metal and glass, and going into debt for Chinese plastic that won't take any better pictures than what I'm getting now - with equipment that was paid for long ago.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>It is Nikon or Canon who has invested into China (also Vietnam and Indonesia) and built up digital camera / lens lines, not Chinese camera makers. Chinese lens makers (such as Phenix) used to manufacture fine lens which can be comparable against (some type of) Karl Zeiss lens, but were crushed by Japanese giants in 1980s because of its relatively small scale. Remember, it is Japanese giants who brought these cheap plastic into China then pushed all over the world, not Chinese. </p> <p>The Chinese all know Kodak, Leica or Zeiss history, so please read some history of China film industry before you post any words like above. No offence.</p> <p>Photo: Japanese-USA hot baby Leah Dizon used a Chinese made Seagull Twin-lens reflex in Africa</p> <p><img src="https://zuwdaa.blu.livefilestore.com/y1msRhQOWs69vFxHx6J0Q0xMdi_Wsn42e7w-Jm0gEo8RvYcRFwNGJbLiD2p9bAR_agMZWW-fUwFsn39nCJHbTftnGHaVTFloMrmQRbxiHOzM36vyUGkYVk1X5ylL3AgVrO-LO8rB3kBpwzXpiCjK_UGYw/%E8%8E%89%E4%BA%9A%E8%BF%AA%E6%A1%91%E5%92%8C%E6%B5%B7%E9%B8%A5%E7%9B%B8%E6%9C%BA_thumb.jpg" alt="" width="660" height="750" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithsizzers Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>John Shen,</p> <p>No offense intended, and none taken. </p> <p>It was not my intention, John, to criticize China or the Chinese people in any way. I'm sure we Americans are equally responsible for substandard products - wherever they are manufactured - by demanding ever cheaper prices. We are too willing to ignore some ugly truths about pollution and exploitation in order to get our daily fix of cheap stuff, and that makes me sad.</p> <p>The point I thought I was trying to make is not so much that the Chinese (and Vietnamese and Indonesian) cameras are bad, but that my 1980s era Japanese cameras are good - and, more importantly, paid for. And because they were paid for in 1980s dollars, they look like a bargain compared to the new plastic cameras I see in the stores today.</p> <p>Because I became a photographer during the 1970s, the weight and feel of satin aluminum and blackened brass have a way of pushing my nostalgia buttons in a way that plastic does not. When I was coming of age "Plastics" was a joke punch line in a movie (The Graduate).</p> <p>I admit it - nostalgia makes no sense - the esthetics of the camera exterior has no effect on the esthetics of the image - and it's all about the image, right?</p> <p>But when I add up esthetics, and economics, and image quality - the scales tip in favor of film - at least it does, for me, for now.</p> <p>I think you must know what I am talking about, or you wouldn't be showing me a picture of a Seagull Twin-lens reflex - unless you are really showing me a picture of a hot babe - in which case we are still talking about esthetics, right?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Sigh. Oh for the good old days when one could tell a "real" photographer by the amount of brassing showing on the corners and edges of his camera. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>Or the amount of Electrical tape on the camera also.... :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synyan Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 <p>Dear Gary,</p> <p>I think the divergence came from the unintentional ignored carelessness that might indicate and intimate the link between perfectly serviceable metal and glass with Japan, and plastic won't work with China. It is not fair. That is why I wanted to contest, gave proofs, and tried to correct. For other parts I am on your side.</p> <p>Sincerely</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_rives1 Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 <p>Sorry about the late post but I came across some slides my dad shot around 1952 either coming or going to Japan - then Korea (war).<br> Kodakrome colors held up despite terrible storage.</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now