Colin O

<p>You can see in the table here how long you can record with each setting:<br> <a href="http://docs.esupport.sony.com/dvimag/DSCRX100M2_guide/en/contents/12/03/02/02.html"> http://docs.esupport.sony.com/dvimag/DSCRX100M2_guide/en/contents/12/03/02/02.html</a></p> <p>You can see that with the "24p 24M(FX)" setting, you can record for longer than with the "60p 28M(PS)" setting.</p>

I'm not familiar with the Canon AE-1, but I downloaded the manual and it says that setting the ASA (ISO) is "absolutely necessary for getting correct exposure", so the needle in the viewfinder must take the ASA (ISO) setting into account Really - reversal film is expensive enough - instead of wasting your money, you need to ensure you know how metering/exposure control is supposed to work with the camera (that is, the combination of aperture, shutter speed and ISO), and also determine if your meter/shutter are not operating as intended. As Lex says, the shutter may well not be operating at the speed marked on the dial. I think it would definitely be worth using another method of metering to compare with the camera's internal meter.

This might be adding more possibilities for confusion and/or exposure error, but if you want to use wide apertures in order to minimise depth of field, you could also experiment with neutral density filters.

<p>The discontinuation of my film of choice, Provia 400X, was announced almost a year ago (although I still haven't seen an official discontinuation announcement other than the Fujifilm dealer bulletin posted by Freestyle Photo on Facebook). Yet you can still buy Provia 400X from PhotoUK.</p><p>What I read into these things - Provia 400X's continued availability and the film stocks the OP's dealer has been selling until recently - is that Fujifilm reversal film stocks are sitting on dealers' shelves (or in their fridges) for a year or more before they can shift them. I don't think there's cause for celebration unfortunately.</p>

<p>New Fujifilm packaging is old news. There was a thread on this in February 2013.<br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00bOjb"> http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00bOjb</a></p>

<p>Yes.</p> <p>I have a Noblex panoramic camera, which I want to continue using, so that means shooting film.</p> <p>I once read that if you want prints, shoot negative film, and if you want to project, shoot reversal film. What if you want to scan? You can choose either.</p> <p>I prefer the colours that reversal film gives me compared to negative film. I find reversal film easier to scan, it provides me with a reference image to match my scans to, it is easier to review frames, and it also provides an "end image", whereas shooting negative film and just getting the negatives back from the lab is not at all satisfying.</p>

<p>Ten years ago I took a round-the-world trip with a pile of film, some of which went through 21 flights before being processed (and some I think went through as many as 30 flights). To be honest, I can't remember how many hand inspections I was granted and how many times my film was x-rayed, but it certainly went through several scanners, and none of it suffered any adverse effects.</p><p>As recommended, don't put your film in checked luggage, but to worry about film going through carry-on x-ray scanners, especially if it's just a return trip from the US to Europe, is to be, in my experience, unnecessarily paranoid. By all means request a hand inspection, but if it's refused, don't worry about it. I wouldn't bother with the hassle of locating film/processing in France/Switzerland either.</p><p>And I'd forget about the lead-lined film bag too. What will likely happen in that case is that the security person will see the lead-lined bag on their monitor and insist that the contents be taken out and put through the scanner again.</p>

I was wondering why the OP wanted to get the film out of a disposable camera. If the main goal is to obtain cheap 800-speed film, wouldn't it be worth considering Fujifilm rather than opening up a Kodak disposable?

<p>That sounded like a snub of the film Lomography sells. What I meant was, if you're looking for effects such as perhaps colour shifts, etc, the Lomography store sells expired film and film intended to give more unpredictable results. Try also:<br> <a href="http://www.ultrafineonline.com/colorfilms.html"> http://www.ultrafineonline.com/colorfilms.html</a><br> <a href="http://www.fourcornerstore.com/collections/film"> http://www.fourcornerstore.com/collections/film</a><br> <a href="http://www.labeauratoire.com/film/"> http://www.labeauratoire.com/film/</a><br> <a href="http://shop.revolog.net"> http://shop.revolog.net</a></p><p>I am not endorsing these stores, I'm just sharing links I've come across.</p>

<p>Disposable cameras are not used as a way to shift film that doesn't meet quality standards. Why would Kodak or any manufacturer do that and risk a huge percentage of returns/refunds? They don't load them with Portra understandably, but I imagine it's the same emulsion as you'd get buying the cheaper "normal" rolls of film.</p> <p>Here are some pictures of rolls from disposable cameras:<br> <a href="http://www.pinterest.com/pin/167548048607374928/"> http://www.pinterest.com/pin/167548048607374928/</a><br> <a href="http://www.pinterest.com/pin/167548048607374915/"> http://www.pinterest.com/pin/167548048607374915/</a></p> <p>If you are actually seeking out sub-standard film, take a look at what's on offer in the Lomography store, and in particular the Revolog film.</p>

<p>What do you mean by "improve" the autofocus? Sony offers the LA-EA4 adapter to allow A-Mount lenses to be used on the Sony α7/α7R (E-Mount) cameras. The LA-EA4 includes a translucent mirror and an autofocus sensor, so you can expect autofocus performance similar to Sony A-Mount SLT cameras. (Which one specifically, I'm not sure.)</p>

<p>I have a Nikon Coolscan V film scanner and an archive of somewhere in the region of 8000 negatives and slides that I want to scan. Before starting this job, I'd like to determine the optimal workflow, so I just worked my way through <a href="http://www.rockynook.com/book/91/scanning-negatives-and-slides%2C-2nd-edition.html">Scanning Negatives and Slides</a> by Sascha Steinhoff, and I'd like to ask your opinion on something he recommends which I would never have done myself. I'm sure you understand that I don't want to do this job once and then realise that I need to start all over again in order to do it properly.</p> <p>Sascha Steinhoff says in the book that film grain will often look more pleasing if the scanner scales the image, in particular in the case of Nikon scanners. He says, "Here is a very simple trick to improve image quality: set the scan resolution to the optical resolution and then scale to 50%. This effect cannot be reproduced afterwards in an image editor; it has to be done during scanning. It is due to the effect that scanning in full resolution produces more noise than scanning with a lower resolution. If you just scale down the scan afterwards, the noise is still there; at least in subjective matter, it gets even more visible through scaling. The best practice is to scan the slide at the same resolution you want to use later. If you scan primarily for archiving purposes, 2000 dpi is a good compromise."</p> <p>However, at two different points later in the book, he contradicts the previous statement by saying that images should be scanned at the optical resolution of the scanner.</p> <p>Personally, I don't think 2000 dpi is enough for scanning 135 film for archival purposes. I'd be interested to hear what others think of his suggestion, or if anyone has experience with this.</p> <p>Thanks.</p>