michael_watkins1

<b>Finally, a thread I can sink my teeth into :)</b><p>Ilford roll end adhesive tastes far better than Kodak, slightly minty, smells more minty than it tastes.<p>Unfortunately for roll end adhesive enthusiasts, the limited selection of 'vintages' prevents development of a full scale obsession.<p>--Michael, roll-end adhesive sommelier

<p><p>ps: I put my 120 film in a black plastic bag leftover from B&W paper storage, as I have had the occasional issue with Ilford rolls and edge fogging. My camera and backs wind the film up nice and tight, it seems to be an issue with Ilford rolls themselves but since the bag solves the problem, I've not looked deeper into the subject.

<p>

The minty, fresh taste with a hint of lemon keeps me coming back to Ilford for more.... LOL<p>

Vuk, just in case you feel I was singling you out, I wasn't, its just your comments caught my attention and I initiated a reply. Frankly the rest of the comments were coming into this thread far too quickly for me to bother scanning them for other relevant points. Nonetheless, your comment back to me deserves a quick reply.

> You've been a member for about 3 weeks and you haven't uploaded any photos. Perhaps some newbie reserve is called for here. <

I pointed out in this same thread earlier that I recognized that I'm a recent member without having contributed. However, those two points do not make me a 'newbie'. I've spent some time using Photo.net as a resource prior to signing up for posting priveledges, have read hundreds if not thousands of postings, and feel I have a decent sense for the community. Otherwise I'd not have commented at all.

The issues being discussed here are not unlike those found in other on-line communities, and I've been involved in a number of them, some quite actively, going back in time before most users on this system ever heard of the Internet.

As long as people are civil and being constructive, I see no reason why a 'newbie' should refrain from joining in on a discussion if a person has an honest and thoughtful comment or contribution to make. It is exactly this open access to contributors from around the world that Photo.net the terrific resource that it is.

PS to the person suggesting Slashdot, not a bad idea. At least the community has a hand in floating worthwhile commentary to the top. - cheers all.

I'm in 100% agreement with Tony from Oz. And...

>> Vuk - "The people expressing sentiments along the lines of "it's not perfect, but it's still OK" have probably not seen the kind of damage the ratings system can inflict on an individual." <<

If a photographer is that influenced by what a crowd of virtual strangers think, especially the 'thought-less' ones abusing the system, then its probably best that the photographer *not participate*. Very simple.

>> Vuk - "Top member-rated aside, a visible average score is likely to bias the next rater in the same direction and provide ultimately flawed (skewed) feedback (I have carried out graduate level research on this sort of thing, so trust me)." <<

I use the photocritique page the way I imagine it was designed - you do not know what others feel about an image until *after* you critique it. Seems fair enough to me. Why not use the system in the way it was designed? It solves exactly the problem you describe.

>> Vuk - "Similarly, making the entire list of raters and scores visible has all kinds of other potential biases associated with it--for example, just the other day I found myself spontaneously going over to the portfolio of someone who'd given me a nice score/comment and looking around for a picture that I could be generous with. This sort of thing invalidates all "psychometric" validity of the numeric ratings." <<

And are the ratings designed to be authoritative, I might ask?

I still see nothing wrong with the basic system as it now stands. Sure, make it more difficult to cheat, but do not change the fundamental principles behind the rating methodology today. The system allows for rapid and broad participation. The system was not designed to support serious competition.

Methinks people are taking this far more seriously than the issue warrants. Just my opinion.

IMO,

The ratings issue is a tempest in a teapot. Tweak it if you must, remove the ability to self-rate (a sensible tweaking I think), and leave it alone otherwise. Its just not that important.

I'm a recent member of this community although I have been part of many on-line communities. It seems that as the communications technology has improved so has the frequency and velocity of griping!

In my short time as a member I have rated several hundred images myself, yet I do not have any of my own uploaded. Frankly have been too busy with my business and not had the time to deal with scanning and posting images. Yet. Does this make me unqualified to rate?

I personally don't think so, I rate anyones images in the same way I cull my own. Have been a serious amateur and occasional paid photographer since the 70's.

What about the neophyte photographer just starting out? Should that person be banned from ranking? No. The process of looking and reviewing images (we all do it mentally whether there is a "rating button" or not!) is a useful learning process for all, especially the beginner.

It is impossible to implement a conscience using technology, and sure, some folks will abuse any system. Given the huge diversity of the community - even if only all serious, experienced amateurs and pros were allowed to rate - there would still be big variances in rating approaches. The perfect mouse trap doesn't exist yet already exists.

Live with it as is, more or less, is what I am suggesting. I believe that the benefits on balance outweigh the downside. People get to expose their work to a broad audience of mostly intersted observers. Terrific!

Whatever Photo.net's decision is, I hope they make a policy and any changes soon, stick to the decisions made, and find some way of putting closure on the issue so that the community can, hopefully, find something more productive to discuss! Cheers all - Mike

I am not trying to start a Hassy vs Rollei war, but perhaps you should also consider the Rollei 6000 series. It wouldn't appeal to those who aren't into batteries, but certainly if automation is interesting to you, it is one very serious contender in 6x6 format.

TTL metering regardless of viewfinder, central (leaf) shutters, access to quite a comprehensive line up of Zeiss and Schneider lenses. There are plenty of interesting user Rollei 6008 stories here on Photo.net. Price competitive and especially so when comparing it against an equivalent Hassy with automation.

Sure there are downsides too. I wish that renting Rollei gear was even 1/100 as easy as renting Hasselblad gear for those infrequently used items. Far fewer knowledgable dealerships.

But perhaps worth considering. May as well have some fun spending the imaginary dollars prior to plunking down the real ones.

cheers - Michael

I too think an old Rollei or other servicable twin lens reflex camera is not a bad idea. I'd have inherited a nice one myself except as kids one of my brothers tossed ours into a pool. :(

<br><br>

You didn't mention any type of usage, so I'll add to the list that may appeal if very cheap or very mobile are on your criteria list - older medium format ranger finders such as a Super Ikonta with Zeiss optics can be found for reasonable amounts - I paid under 100$ Canadian in a flea market once for one and it is extremely serviceable. Many of these post-war cameras are still around and out there and I don't think you have to pay collector prices if you are willing to look around.

<br><br>

My Ikonta planted the MF bug in me many years ago. I have a 6x6 version and that format has been a favorite ever since for me.

<br><br>

Another nice thing about them - they are a folding camera, quite amazingly portable really. I did a lot of backpacking with mine. And people are quite interested in the retro look of a small folding camera.

<br><br>

Did a little quick searching on the web:

<br><br>

Repair: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000ldt">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000ldt</a>

<br><br>

Listing of different models: <a href="http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/z-i120.htm">http://www.wctatel.net/web/crye/z-i120.htm</a>

<br><br>

Parts n stuff (I have no knowledge of this firm) <a href="http://www.goldenapple.com/wwr/">http://www.goldenapple.com/wwr/</a>

<br><br>

I'm sure with more than a couple of minutes you will find many resources out there if interested.

<br><br>

One last comment - if you are on a budget it might be wise to think about film and processing costs. If you are interested in B&W and able to do your own darkroom work, then I think a cheap range finder is not a bad way to go; there will be ample room in the budget left for experimentation. If you are going to have to depend on labs to do your processing, I can see costs being an issue.

<br><br>

PS: Maybe hitting a few flea markets might not be a bad idea anyway, regardless of camera type or model if you intend to delve into machines from days gone by.

Lee Filters makes a line that I've read other users of the 6008i have some experience with; ask me in a week or so and I'll tell you my experience...

Mike