wmwhee

First of all, keep in mind that paper negatives are NOT film negatives. Paper negatives produce a different "look" in

photographs. Photographs produced with paper negatives appear higher in contrast, more compressed in tonal range,

and less sharp than photographs produced with film negatives. Double-weight multicontrast rc paper works fine. I rate

the paper at ISO 8 and develop in Dektol 1:2 at 68 degrees for 1-1.5 minutes. To control contrast, you can pre-flash the

photographic paper used for the negative. Google "Ilford and pre-flashing paper" for details on the process.

Do you enjoy using the large camera/s? If so, hang onto them, just for the enjoyment of using them.

I have enjoyed reading this discussion. I never took a picture until I was thirty, and ever since then, thirty-two years ago, I have

dreamed about improving my photography. Strictly amateur, I shoot b&w film mostly, in large format and small format. I also own a

dslr camera. In small format, I own a f100, which I like a lot. I just purchased a used nikon fe--in fact, I have not received it yet--

which accepts my nikon lenses. Back in the day, when I used my uncle's canon ftb, I dreamed of owning my own manual focus slr

camera. In having just purchased the fe, I am living the dream.

Wow! 400 sheets. A friend game me a half dozen sheets (I have been using paper negatives almost exclusively). This past

weekend I exposed both film negatives (Arista 200) and paper negatives, same subject, same conditions, and I made contact prints

from both film and paper negatives. What a difference! This weekend the film won hands-down. Before ordering 810 film, Arista or

Ilford, I want to shoot the remaining sheets of Arista film in various conditions. Does your 25% reduction in development time include

compensation for continuous agitation, or does it include only compensation for reduction in contrast, if that makes any sense to you?

Thanks for your contribution.

Just passing along my experience with Arista Ultra 200 8x10 film with regard to exposure index and development time. This weekend

I exposed two sheets. Bright overcast. I rated the film at iso 125, which produced good shadow detail. I developed one sheet in d76

(stock) at 68 degrees in a rotary processor five minutes, a 15% reduction of recommended 5-6 minute development time for the

rotary processor. Too much contrast (pale jeans showed little, if any, detail). Then I developed the second sheet, exposed identically

to the first sheet, in d76 (1+1) at 68 degrees in a rotary processor for 5-1/2 minutes, a 30% reduction of recommended 8-9

development time, 15% for continuous agitation in rotary processor and an additional 15% for reduction in contrast. This negative

looks good to me, with good shadow detail and good highlight detail.

Get a canon s95, shoot 1:1 format, make small prints.

I like the feel and features of the d200 camera, especially the ability to use AIs and AFd lenses, and the camera fits

my budget. In use, the d200 reminds me of my f100, a favorite camera of mine.

Thanks again, everyone.

Thanks, all.

I am thinking about buying a used d300 camera. I have looked at one d300 camera, the back LCD screen of which showed internal

streaks or wipe marks under bright light when the monitor was off--not on the surface of the screen, but behind the screen (I also saw

this same streaking on the back LCD screen of a d200 camera). Recently, I contacted a seller on eBay to inquire about the

condition of the screen of the d300 camera being offered for sale, and he replied that the screen did show such streaks. Are these streaks common on the d300 camera? The screen on my old d70, by way of comparison, is absolutely clear--free of streaks. Is it

unreasonable to look for a used d300 camera without such streaks? Thanks. Bill

Recently I purchased a used d200. Although it does not appear damaged, the monitor is not crystal clear. It's almost as if there is a faint latent image burned on the screen. I am unable to remove this effect by simply cleaning, wiping, the surface of the screen. For the sake of comparison, I looked closely at the monitor of my years-old d70 camera, and it appears crystal clear to me. Any ideas about what is going on with the d200 monitor? Thanks. Bill

Like Gene, I shoot b&w film in small and large format. It's what I have wanted to do from the start. I also own and use occasionally a

d70, but rarely print, or have printed by a lab, digital photographs. Still, to an extent, the d70 satisfies the desire for taking pictures.

My favorite 35mm film camera is the f100, so my ideal digital camera would be the current nikon dslr closest in feel and operation to

the f100. It's probably more a comment on my skills than on cameras themselves, but late model cameras often make better

exposure-making decisions, finer distinctions, than I do. As someone with so-so--well, poor--eyesight since birth, I love auto-focus

capability.

The af 28-70/3.5 suits me perfectly. Also with my f100, I use occasionally a fixed 20/2.8 AIs lens, an af 35/2 lens, an af 50/1.8 lens,

and a 100/2.8 e series lens. But the 28-70 zoom is what stays on the camera.

Hi. I'm Gene's friend with the 810 korona and paper negs. Camera and lens cost $425.00, excluding shipping. Gene gave me a

holder, and later I bought two holders. A fortunate man, as I think about it now, I received a 250-sheet box of ilford grade 1 rc paper

from the owner of a local camera store. For me, the 810 camera is an occasional camera. Using the camera makes me feel like I'm

doing something important, significant. Delusions of grandeur. Nothing on my early 1900s-era camera lines up. You must pay

attention to what actually appears on the ground glass and make it right there. It's hard to describe exactly the character of

photographs produced by an 810 camera. Contact prints made from my paper negatives resemble some of those made by other folks

using 810 and paper negatives. They lack the resolution and the long tonality of contact prints made from film negatives. Even my

contact prints made from film negatives look somewhat amateurish to me in comparison with the best work out there. Equipment,

technique, vision? Oh, well, I tell myself. Acceptance is all. I have posted some of my 810 photographs on my flickr photostream

under bill.wheeler. Good luck to you. Bill

Three weeks ago I identified the nikon f100 as my favorite camera. Recently, however, in an effort to get back to basics, I started

shooting with a nikon fm3a. For now, I can say I still prefer using the f100 to the fm3a. My reasons: autofocus, viewfinder, ease of

use--switching exposure modes, selecting aperture and shutter speed, bracketing exposures, dialing in exposure compensation, all

quicker to do with the f100 than the fm3a. Also, the shutter on the f100 seems to produce less vibration than the shutter on the 3a.

Perhaps the greater mass of the f100 body absorbs the vibration. Anyhow, it's back to the f100 for me.

These days I grab my nikon f100 on the way out the door. Intuitive, easy to use. Autofocus capability.

John, I was fortunate. The owner of a local camera store gave me a 250-sheet box of ilfospeed grade 1 rc paper, which I just

discovered is discontinued. Without knowing, I wonder if Ilfospeed grade 2 paper offers any advantage over multigrade paper. I would

also experiment with dektol 1:3 and development times. For negative film, I give full exposure, which is not to say overexposure, and i

try not to overdevelopment the film. If I get close with exposure and development, I have a second chance in the darkroom to make a

decent print. Good luck. Bill

<p>I use Ilford grade #1 rc paper for paper negatives with pretty good results. I develop the paper negatives in dektol 1:2 at 68 degrees for one minute. </p><div></div>

<p>Cameta Camera, for one, offers a d3100 factory demo for $414.00. If you're leaning toward a d3100, you might buy a factory demo and try it, and then if you do not like it, you could recoup your money, or just about, by offering it for sale. Like you, others would like to buy a d3100 body only. <a href="http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Demo-60878.cfm">http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Demo-60878.cfm</a></p>

<p>Cameta Camera, for one, offers a d3100 factory demo for $414.00. If you're leaning toward a d3100, you might buy a factory demo and try it, and then if you do not like it, you could recoup your money, or just about, by offering it for sale. Like you, others would like to buy a d3100 body only. <a href="http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Demo-60878.cfm">http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Factory-Demo-60878.cfm</a></p>

I would love to have a nikon v1, Kent, but it's too pricey for me (remember, I am stuck back in the 70s!). The nikon 35mm/1.8 lens

does seem like a good deal.

<p>I have read with interest the discussion about these prime lenses, especially the 35/1.8 dx lens. I use a zoom lens--18-70mm/3.5--on my digital camera. Sharpness is not an issue for me, but I would like a more compact, faster lens for my camera. Hence my interest in the nikon 35/1.8 lens. Loosely related to all of this is the trend toward small cameras with small sensors and no eye-level viefinders. Instead of purchasing a compact camera like the canon s95 or g12 or a small four-thirds camera, I would like to take advantage of the dx sensor and eye-level viewfinder of a small dslr camera (not large professional models or even large prosumer models) and keep the package small by using a small, fast fixed focal length lens as a walkabout lens. What I am probably have in mind is a digital version of my first small slr camera with a 50mm lens. I carried it everywhere. Sorry about rambling off topic. I wonder if you, too, might enjoy shooting with a small, fast lens. From all I read about the nikon 35/1.8 lens, you will certainly not suffer a loss of sharpness in your pictures. The nikon 35/1.8 lens is inexpensive enough and you could easily sell it for a good price if you discover you do not like it. I've just about talked myself into buying one! </p>

<p>I own a f100. Right now a 50mm/1.8 lens is attached to it. I also own a nikkor 28-70mm/3.5 lens and a couple of manual focus ais lenses which I use with the camera. In the end, I am a fan of fast normal focal length lenses. </p>

<p>Zone focusing is fast and easy, and leaves only framing the shot. With a 40mm lens (common on 70s compact rangefinder cameras) at f/8, for close subjects set the focus at 12 feet, and everything between 8 feet and 26 feet will appear more or less sharp. For distant subjects, set the focus at 25 feet, and everything between 12 feet and infinity will appear more or less sharp. I am including a link to a depth of field calculator for your own use. I generally use zone focusing with a vintage 120 folder (though not for street photography), with good results. <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a> .</p>

<p>Sure enjoyed the photographs. Thanks.</p>