andrew_kleinfeld

I made a pleasant sepia toner discovery this weekend. I had a few failed prints, failed because my developer was stale so the blacks were mere grays. So, thinking sepia toner was a bleach and redevelopment process, I tried sepia toning them. The weak blacks turned into strong sepias, and the prints now look good. It accomplished a lot more than selenium toner would have.

I like Xtol for everything, though I prefer Rodinol for ISO 25 film. Xtol seems to be a lot like D-76 in tonality, only better. It seems to give me a little more speed, or maybe a little more development in the shadows. I use it undiluted most of the time to avoid the risk of dead or weak developer, though I've liked it a lot, maybe better, 1:1. If you can get Xtol and nothing else, you're actually fine.

I like and use my IIIf a lot. It is indeed tricky to load, but it's worth it. Reasons: (1) I can carry it under my coat if it's cold, no battery to fail in the cold, (2) extremely compact to pack for travel as well as to carry (3) easy to hold still for slow shutter speeds - I've gotten good pictures at 1/15 (4) looks cool.

If I'm leaving gear in the car, I like a small cardboard carton on the floor, with a cutoff piece of the spongy mat for sleeping outdoors in a sleeping bag on the bottom and between gear pieces as padding and vibration protection. For carrying, an over the shoulder bag that isn't a camera bag.

I loved that place. I started mail ordering from them in about 1957. You could get good stuff with what a kid like me could earn mowing lawns. I still use some of m

<p>I'm somewhat in awe of the treatise that JDM prepared on the subject of Colorflow (and Colorflow II) filters. <br>

<br />More importantly, I'd like to thank the forum members for their very kind comments about my father. Not to single anyone out but Steve Levine's Henry Ford comment was particularly meaningful because it was not the first time someone made that connection (John Durniak wrote this in Pop Photo in 1979). <br>

<br />Here are two fun trivia facts that relate to the thread:<br>

<br />1.) In addition to the Colorflow filters, there was also Colorflow background paper. (I still use the few sheets of Colorflow background paper that I have - and I would give anything to get my hands on more)<br>

2.) While the company merged with Interphoto (a public company) and ended up out of my father's control at the point at which he left, he still owned the fairly large headquarters building in Flushing and eventually had to evict Spiratone (in Spira v. Spiratone) after the company could no longer pay its bills including rent.</p>

<p>time out error, sorry</p>

I still use my Leica IIIf with Summarit (early 50's?). Very compact travel camera.

Xtol has never gone bad for me. I've used it for years. I store it in full 16 ounce bottles with flip-top airtight stoppers (like old Groelsch beer bottles, or 16 ounce bottles for people who brew beer), and use it straight, no dilution.

I find it much easier to load 120 film onto a stainless steel reel, even though it seems easier to load 35 mm onto a plastic reel. I think the reason is that 120 is much softer, so loading from the inside out on a stainless steel reel avoids crimping better and requires no pushing. 35 is pretty stiff, and stands up easily to outside in and pushing on the plastic reels such as Patterson.

Andrew, no need to worry. Put the Minox camera into your carry one bag. No problem most of the times,

occasionally, security officer may wonder what gadget is it, You just tell them it is a camera, you press the

shutter and let him listen to the click.

 

I carry Minox B, two Minox C, travelled Europe, China, Japan, Thailand, , Angkor Wat, Malaysia, Indonisia...

 

for more than 10 years, every time in and out airport many times, never any problem

 

You need to carry back up battery and enough Minox film, proper Minox battery and Minox film is impossible

to find during travel.

 

Thanks. Good to know about clicking the shutter.

Anyone have experience with TSA while carrying a Minox (the spy camera size, B, BL, C, LX, etc.)? Do they let it through? Confiscate it because it doesn't look like a camera to them? I especially would like to use while traveling, but sure don't want it confiscated, damaged, or opened.

<p>I still use them. I have a decent digital that I use for snapshots, but mostly I still take black and white on film and develop and print in my darkroom (using scans just as proof sheets), and color slides that I scan and print. No real advantage to the color, I guess, except better permanence and access as technology changes. For black and white, the darkroom is faster and better. My film cameras range from around 5 to 48 years old, and almost all of them work fine.</p>

<p>For me, it depends on whether I'm shooting black and white or color. For black and white, I can develop and print faster and better in the darkroom, and the prints look better. For color, it's not worth using the darkroom, digital printing is easier and better, but I still shoot film and scan as well as shooting digital, I suppose because I know and like film (mostly transparencies - easier to scan well than negatives).</p>

<p>Fine photos all, but I-5 Rest Stop is extraordinary. What did you do in exposure, development, enlarging etc.?</p>

<p>The Mac built in software works, but for years I have found it much easier to use Toast.</p>

<p>I sometimes write the film identification with a number 1 pencil (soft) on the chrome part of the camera. It comes off when I lick my finger and rub over the pencil. Or I cut off the non-sticky part of a sticky notes, stick the sticky part on the camera, and write on that.</p>

<p>Beautiful drives out of Fairbanks, maybe the most beautiful is up the Steese Highway to Cleary Summit, Chatanika, Pinnell Mountain Trail. Take survival gear if you go past Chatanika, just in case. If the weather is too dangerous (check Alaska gov site on roads), an easy beautiful drive down Sheep Creek Road, up to the top of Ester Dome, then Murphy Dome Road, then Goldstream Road toward Fox, then the Old Steese back to town. </p>

<p>I find the plastic reels easier with 35 mm, and the steel reels easier with 120. 35 mm film is pretty stiff, so it pushes onto the plastic reels OK. 120 film is softer, and sometimes crinkles when loaded onto the plastic reels, but winds easily onto the stainless steel reels. 35 mm film, if the slightest bit out of square, won't load onto the steel reels, and because it's thinner, it's harder to get it square.</p>

<p>For black and white, the silver prints look better on the wall than the pigment or dye prints. And I can make a good black and white print faster in the darkroom than on the computer. And it's more enjoyable. Color is a different story. Digital works better for color - not a lot you can do to vary and improve a color print in the darkroom, compared to digital. And it's less fun -- the safelight is too dark to see much.</p>

hard to beat the less fancy rolleiflex models - 3.5 instead of 2.8, D or E instead of F, and rolleicord - for quality, price, light weight, good

value.

<p>For reasons I am not sure I understand, my Leica pictures are better than my other pictures. Maybe it's the easier handling. Everything - framing, focus, aperture, shutter speed, lens change, carrying the thing around all day - is easier. The lenses are the best, but I am not really so much of a sharpness buff that the lenses explain it (I don't think). My Rolleiflex pictures used to be the best, but maybe because of my age, I no longer focus as easily as I used to with the Rolleis. Leicas are fast and easy to focus, and unlike autofocus cameras and digital cameras, I can easily focus where I choose. </p>

<p>My second hand IIIf and M4 still work perfectly, though I have to concede that each has been CLA's once in their long lives.</p>

<p>I think they started downhill in the 60's, when they diluted their brand with low quality cameras. You just couldn't respect the company as much when they sold Instamatics as when they sold Retinas.</p>

<p>Their quality standards for film and chemicals were great, but they didn't give enough, or accurate enough, information to users. I was happy switching to Ilford in the 70's.</p>

<p>Dilution of a great brand takes a while for the brand to fail, but it eventually does. And relying almost entirely on an obsolete product, film for movies and X-rays, seals it.</p>

<p>I haven't got an M9, but when I've carried other M's, people just thought it was an old and old fashioned camera. If they asked about it, they asked if it was an antique.</p>

<p>I use it straight. Not 1:1, straight.</p>

<p>It's not expensive, because 5 liters is a lot, 10 rolls of 120 or 20 rolls of 35 with 2 metal reels in a tank.</p>

<p>16 oz plus fit into a Grolsch beer bottle, the kind with the rubber stopper, and no air reaches it. It's supposed to go bad in 6 months, but I recently found a 2 year old bottle, tried it on a roll I didn't care about, and it came out beautiful. Stores selling home brew beer supplies sell the same kind of bottle. </p>

 

<p>You may be right about focus. I used to use a Rollei most of the time, but now I get sharper pictures with the Leica, and my best guess is rangefinder focusing. The bigger Rollei negative ought to offset any higher standards for the Leica lenses. Eyes age.</p>