phc1

I'm sure someone must have asked this in the past but I can't find it

in the archives. So - what does CLA stand for? I know it means a

sevice...

Well Bert - you're so curious!

But I guess we can take it that "Miss Unknown" would be a misnomer

then?

Ah... that doesn't seem to have worked!

Anyway, it's a good bag - easy to gain access to the camera yet

weatherproof and well padded.

Don't worry too much about the camera getting knocked about though,

they can take it. Built like tanks.

Hello PD,

I've been using this little number called - unfortunately - a PRAT.

It's very good though. Comes from Paris and fits the M6 and gubbins

very nicely.

This is their website: http://www.geete.com/prat/rl031.htm

And here's a pic:<div>[ATTACH=full]306[/ATTACH]</div>

Jon: The water jacket option is indeed the obvious one but I always

believe the best thing is to use room temperature if at all possible.

Surely increasing dilution should give the the longer time required -

but will it have adverse effects on the emulsion?

I have heard that adding a small amount of sodium sulphate to D-76

(which I understand is chemically similar to HC110) will stop the

emulsion softening. Or what about a pre-hardening bath?

I'm trying to find information on processing films at high

temperatures. I live in Spain and it's beginning to heat up here now.

I expect my darkroom could easily be 35 or 40 deg C in a month or so,

and there's no air-conditioning in these old Spanish buildings!

My films are Plus-X, Tri-X and T-Max 3200, and my dev is HC110 dil B.

I'm not keen on the cold (or iced) 'water jacket' technique as I have

no way of keeping the film cool while I load it onto the spirals, and

pouring 20 deg chemicals onto 35 deg film isn't a good idea.

I know testing is the real answer to this, but has anyone done any

tests before, to give me a start? Should I begin by increasing the

dilution of the dev? Unfortunately the Kodak tech pubs on the films

and chemicals don't cover this area.

Thanks - any help will be appreciated!

I don't think they're grey, or soft, at all. It's a matter of opinion

I guess.

Particularly like the museum shot Marc.

Paul.

Marco: I use Tri-X a lot and have never had a need to set the meter at

anything other than 400, unless I'm pushing it or using a deep

coloured filter for special purposes.

I guess this depends on how you're going to dev it, but normally the

latitude of the film is so great you'll still get some kind of neg

even if the lab - or you - screw up a little on the dev.

Stick with 400 unless you have a really good reason to change.

Paul

Thanks Allen, I'd never even heard of Pierrot Man. Some great work

there

This is a great shot, Bob. I believe this is the first time I've ever

been moved to comment on any images posted in this forum, but this

time I have to.

I'd never think of doing this kind of thing on 35mm but it works

really well, especially with what I assume is natural light. Reminds

me of Man Ray.

Does anyone have experience of this inexpensive meter? Is it worth

buying? Is it sensitive in very low light?

<p>

I rely on the M6 TTL meter during daylight, so I only need something

for night-time work. I was considering the L408, but it seems like

overkill. Is the L188 "Auto-Leader" the answer?

And, while I do enjoy a visit to the opera, I prefer the bags that

accompany me to be rather prettier than any camera bag I have so far

seen.

For those who are still interested in the bag, or at least those who

have not been sidelined by the doubtlessly fascinating etymological

discourse, the bag cost EUR108. You'll have to figure out what that is

in your money. And I'm still pleased with it, regardless of your

entirely unsolicited frivolousness.

Sorry folks, link should have read

http://www.geete.com/prat/rl031.htm#

<p>

And, incidentally, an ass is a silly person. Or a donkey. Anatomically

the word you are grasping for is arse. But wasn't this a thread about

camera bags?

Apropos every photographer's never ending quest for the perfect bag, I

thought I'd let you know about the latest stage in mine.

<p>

I've finally ditched - and not without tears - my old ex-Indian Army

canvas haversack, lovingly customised over the years with velco bits

and foam bobs, and replaced it with a leather bag I've just found

called, rather disturbingly for an Englishman, "Prat".

<p>

I'm a past master at finding fault in ready-made bags - it's too tall,

wide, fiddley, big, small, just plain ugly - I'm sure you know the

score. The "Prat", however, was difficult to fault, in fact the only

thing is the strap's too short, although I should perhaps point out

that I'm over six feet tall and like to wear the strap across my chest

and have the bag at hip height, so almost any normal strap is too

short. I can always get a strap made anyway.

<p>

Apart from that the "Prat" (I'm going to have to do something about

that name) is just about right, being simple, unobtrusive and

flexible. The "Bora" model bag takes the M6, 50 'lux, 6x film, 6x

filters, notebook, cleaning kit, phone, that I usually carry with just

the right amount of space. I'm strictly a 50mm man so I don't carry

quantities of lenses.

<p>

I'll let you know how it works out in the long run. If you want to

know what it looks like go to http://www.geete.com/pra

What does it matter that his parents had money? The man is responsible

for some staggeringly good shots, that's all we need to know.

<p>

Even if some of his day to day work wasn't of the same standard, we

shouldn't lose sight of his achivement. He's only a photographer,

after all, not the messiah.

That's "on everyone", seeing as how my gremlin has struck again and

delelted the last few letters of my message. Does anyone else have

this proiblem? Is the something I can do to solve it?

Interesting that the positive comments on this work have all

complimented his style, which for me is the worst aspect. I don't

dislike the pictures at all - even, heaven help us, the erotica - but

when viewed as a whole I found myself asking why he doesn't try more

new ideas.

<p>

So many of the portraits seem to come out of the same mould. I always

believed the subject should influence the composition, rather than the

photographer imposing his "style" on eve

Doesn't the new "Digilux 1" answer the digital Leica arguments, for

the time being at least?

<p>

See http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux1/index_e.htm

Now that, Nick, is what I *call* research!

<p>

Fabulous, thanks very much. I'm now trying to find a dealer who has

one in stock so I can try for myself - no easy thing in Spain.

<p>

Thanks one and all

Strangely enough, Virgil, I do actually have my old OM1 on my desk

right now and I've been trying the experiment - M6 verses OM1. I'd

forgotten how quiet the old OMs were.

<p>

What a great little camera it was. I must use it mor

Seems to me that in many respects the motor is just an expensive

hand-grip

Last line should have read "Should I buy one?".

<p>

Bloody technology...

Does anyone use the "new" Motor M? If you do, what are your thoughts?

<p>

The relative silence of the standard M is important to the kind of

work I do so if the Motor is loud, it's no good to me. It's also

massively expensive - no surprises there - so it'd have to be pretty

damn good to be worth the imvestment.

<p>

Should I buy o