James G. Dainis

What about the woman who made the false bomb claim and caused all the disruption of the flight? Is she being charged with making a false bomb report? If not, then I guess I can be on a plane and tell the attendant, "I think that man over there has a bomb" and then after an emergency landing I can just walk away with an evil smile on my face.

I believe it is the film processing technique that Rick uses that makes his negatives and prints stand out. I can scan down a group of photos posted and immediately know when I am looking at a Rick Drawbridge photo. It has a silver look that distinguishes it from the gray look of other images.

rick_drawbridge, You don't have to go out. The photos of your cameras are works of art themselves.I don't think I could make anything look that sharp and clear even with an 8x10 camera.

Speaking of give-a-ways, I had a friend who bought a Hasselblad at a yard sale for $5.00. The woman who sold it said she didn't know if they still made film for that old camera anymore.

Rick, I always appreciate the set ups you make with your camera photos. The rose is a nice touch with the "feminine market" Ikonette

Alas, on all the cruise ships I have been on I still had to put my carry on bags through a scanner before boarding.

I had to use the same identical post in this thread as in the other thread. That seems like a duplicate to me. If you feel otherwise I will reopen your thread.

I can't see security holding up the line until a supervisor arrives to settle a dispute about hand checking. As has happened to me, they say "OK" and I go through and then watch the belt as my film in a clear plastic bag comes through the machine where they put it. What are you going to do? Tell them to put it in reverse to undo any damage? I have put the same film several times through the old machines with no problem. I don't know abut the newer CT scanners. And apparently neither do the airport security agents. "...these scanners may impact the camera film,"

I can't see security holding up the line until a supervisor arrives to settle a dispute about hand checking. As has happened to me, they say "OK" and I go through and then watch the belt as my film in a clear plastic bag comes through the machine where they put it. What are you going to do? Tell them to put it in reverse to undo any damage? I have put the same film several times through the old machines with no problem. I don't know abut the newer CT scanners. And apparently neither do the airport security agents. "...these scanners may impact the camera film,"

Could you buy the film abroad and develop it yourself or have it developed abroad (negatives only)?

It looks easy enough: Still, all that does is replace a changing bag for loading film into a developing tank. I would often develop two rolls of film at a time in a two reel tank. This lab box limits you to doing one film at a time.

I was watching an old cowboy movie and rolled my eyes as a photographer was taking shot after shot with a large format camera and not inserting/changing film holders. But lo and behold, a bystander informed the sheriff that they were fake/not knowing what they were doing. Seems they just were using the photo gear as a prop to be able to take plenty of time to check out the local bank before a hold up. I used to pull up the dark slide on an 8x10 film holder, say, "That looks like a good emulsion" then push the slide back down and insert the film holder into the camera. People who knew photography would stare at me with jaws hanging down. (The trick is to have a good film on one side of the film holder and a waste film on the other side. Insert the good film side facing the lens.) I saw something like that in an old Jerry Lewis movie.

I think the OP wants a binder that has D shape rings not round. I assume D rings that would be better for holding negatives than round rings

That looks like a pretty neat setup.

I don't know about diffraction with a large format lens. On a "normal" 300mm large format lens, at f/64 the aperture opening is over 3/16 inch about the same opening as 50mm lens set a f/8. This all may not be pertinent to the discussion but is a bit interesting.

When I told a friend that i usually shot my 8x10 negatives at f/64 he said that I must get tremendous depth of field. Not so, The depth of field on 8x10 at f/64 is about the same as f/16 on35mm film.

I always liked using color filters on black and white film. The results seemed like magic to me. There is more control with digital filtration but it just seems like fooling around to me, taking out all the magic.

You may want to try a test shot or two to see if the light from you flash bulb is as strong as that of Weegee. You might also want to overdevelop your film to give it a harder, harsher look. And wear a fedora. Without a fedora you would just look silly.

Moderator's note: I would remind posters that the Photo.net terms so use state that you can only post pictures that you have taken your self. You can post a link to other photos if you want to

I lived in New York from 1970 to 1995. I was familiar with most of the Manhattan camera stores mentioned in the second post. My favorite was Competitive camera, just down from Penn Station, which seemed to have the best deals when it was a small storefront. Then it took over the store next door and greatly expanded even including TV sets. The prices went up and I no longer went there. It closed not long after (in the 1980s?) long before digital heralded the demise of most of the other stores.

Put a $1,500 price tag on it and it becomes fine art.

"McKeown's Price Guide to Antique and Classic Cameras" (2005 2006) lists the Welta Garant c 1937 at $50-75. I don't know about the lenses and other gear.

The advantage of a polarizer is it reduces glare or shine to make colors richer. Even in black and white the loss of glare makes a difference but some people may prefer the unpolarized sharper lookingversion.

And on that happy note we can end this foolish back and forth.

I had a Sony Mavica FD73 back in the late 1990s for taking photos for eBay sale items. From reading the eBay chat rooms, I would say it was the most popular camera for eBay. It was very simple to use with a close focus (not macro) of 1/2 inch. None of my computers now have a floppy disk drive so I have a lot of photos on disks sitting in a shoe box in my closet.